Cases 1 - 10 of 153
Larry Blakney v. Merrick Garland
as 24-6377
Petitioner:
LARRY BLAKNEY
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General of U.S. and WARDEN THOMAS SCARANTINO
Goodloe v. Matevousion et al
as 4:2024cv00695
Petitioner:
Ronald E. Goodloe
Respondent:
Andre Matevousion, Warden Thomas E. Bargami and B. Potes
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Goodloe v. Matevousion et al
as 3:2024cv50138
Petitioner:
Ronald E. Goodloe
Respondent:
Andre Matevousion, Warden Thomas E. Bargami and B. Potes
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Alvarez-Cuan v. Warden Thomas
as 1:2024cv01501
Petitioner:
Luis Alberto Alvarez-Cuan
Respondent:
Warden Thomas
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Gonzalez-Rodriguez v. Thomas
as 1:2024cv00648
Petitioner:
Arley Gonzalez-Rodriguez
Respondent:
Warden Thomas
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
J.S. v. Hinkle et al
as 4:2024cv00602
Plaintiff:
J.S.
Defendant:
Warden Thomas Ray Hinkle, Andrew Jones, Patrick Pool and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Asberry v. Unnamed Defendant
as 1:2024cv00461
Plaintiff:
Johnny Asberry
Defendant:
Phillips State Prison, Warden Thomas, State of Georgia and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Dingle, Jr. v. Palmer et al
as 9:2024cv00235
Plaintiff:
Henry O'Neal Dingle, Jr.
Defendant:
Warden John Palmer and Associate Warden Thomas Robertson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
John Doe, et al v. Dana Nessel, et al
as 23-2097
Plaintiff:
TIM BROWN, JOHN DOE and TIMOTHY RONALD BROWN
Defendant:
ATTORNEY GENERAL DANA NESSEL, ANICA LETICA, ONE COURT OF JUSTICE, Judges and others
Mills v. Wallace
as 3:2023cv02284
Petitioner:
Shad D. Mills
Respondent:
Warden Thomas Wallace
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
