Cases 1 - 10 of 16
Zeray v. Goodrich et al
as 1:2024cv00837
Petitioner:
Alem Zeray
Respondent:
Warden Barry Goodrich and Attorney General Philip J. Weiser
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
CHAPMAN SR v. SHAVERS et al
as 1:2023cv00143
Plaintiff:
TREVON D CHAPMAN SR
Defendant:
DEPUTY WARDEN BRIAN SHAVERS, DEPUTY WARDEN SPANN, DEPUTY WARDEN OSBORNE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Wilborn v. Holmes County
as 23-60277
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Kelsey Wilborn, Jr.
Defendant / Appellee:
Holmes County, Warden Barry Rule, Sheriff Willie March and others
Wilborn v. Holmes County et al
as 3:2022cv00187
Plaintiff:
Kelsey Wilborn, Jr.
Defendant:
Holmes County, Warden Barry Rule, Sheriff Willie March and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Wooddell v. Kanode et al
as 7:2021cv00459
Plaintiff:
Hugh Kevin Wooddell
Defendant:
Warden Barry Kanode, Officer Dalton, Officer Young and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
MCCARGO v. FAYETTE COUNTY et al
as 2:2020cv00974
Defendant:
WARDEN BRIAN MILLER, DEPUTY WARDEN MICHAEL ZAVADA, JOHN DOE and others
Plaintiff:
KAII MCCARGO
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Monzon v. Repass et al
as 7:2020cv00332
Defendant:
Officer Felts, Warden Barry Kanode, Major H. Sharpe and others
Plaintiff:
Roman Sebastian Monzon
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Jackson v. Rule et al
as 4:2019cv00158
Respondent:
Warden Barry Rule and Attorney General Jim Hood
Petitioner:
Herman Jackson, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
TORRES v. MONMOUTH COUNTY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION et al
as 3:2019cv17704
Defendant:
MONMOUTH COUNTY, ROGER BREMEKAMP, JOHN DOE CORRECTIONS OFFICERS 1-10 and others
Plaintiff:
ANGELO TORRES
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Eddie Dogan v. Barry Tucker
as 19-6249
Petitioner / Appellant:
EDDIE DEAN DOGAN
Respondent / Appellee:
WARDEN BARRY TUCKER
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
