Cases 1 - 10 of 10
William Couch v. Harold Clarke
as 19-6526
Defendant / Appellee:
A. DAVID ROBINSON, HAROLD CLARKE, JOHN A. WOODSON and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
WILLIAM R. COUCH and SCOTT M. BOGER
Larry Southern v. Richard H. Bishoff, PC
as 15-2008
Plaintiff - Appellant:
LARRY SOUTHERN, ROY SOUTHERN, YVONNE HARRIS and others
Plaintiff:
LUCILLE SOUTHERN, ODELL PARKER and RUTH PARKER
Defendant - Appellee:
RICHARD H. BISHOFF, PC, RICHARD H. BISHOFF, JOHN M. DEAKLE and others
Defendant:
ASBESTOS PROCESSING LLC, A. JOEL BENTLEY LAW OFFICE, CHARLES G. BLACKWELL, JR. and others
Intervenor:
WILLIAM HOWELL MORRISON
William Couch v. John Woodson
as 13-7975
Petitioner - Appellant:
WILLIAM R. COUCH
Respondent - Appellee:
JOHN WOODSON, Warden, Augusta Correctional Center
Couch v. Woodson
as 3:2013cv00146
Petitioner:
William R. Couch
Respondent:
John Woodson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
William Couch v. John Jabe
as 11-6560
Plaintiff - Appellant:
WILLIAM R. COUCH
Defendant - Appellee:
JOHN M. JABE, DANIEL A. BRAXTON and STEVE HOLLAR
Couch v. Jabe et al
as 7:2011cv00034
Defendant:
Daniel A. Braxton, John Garman, John M. Jabe and others
Plaintiff:
William R. Couch
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Couch v. Jabe, et al
as 5:2010cv00072
Defendant:
Daniel A. Braxton, Steve Hollar and John M. Jabe
Plaintiff:
William R. Couch
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Couch v. Jabe
as 7:2009cv00434
Plaintiff:
William R. Couch
Defendant:
John Jabe
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
William Couch v. R. Mathena
as 09-6472
Plaintiff - Appellant:
WILLIAM R. COUCH
Defendant - Appellee:
R. MATHENA, DONALD VASS and LARRY HUFFMAN
Couch v. Mathena et al
as 7:2008cv00518
Plaintiff:
William R. Couch
Defendant:
R. Mathena, Donald Vass and Larry Huffman
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
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.