Cases 1 - 10 of 53
William Watson v. Limestone CF Warden, et al
as 23-13460
Petitioner / Appellant:
WILLIAM DALE WATSON
Respondent / Appellee:
ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF ALABAMA and LIMESTONE CF WARDEN
Watson v. Crabtree et al
as 5:2022cv01386
Petitioner:
William Dale Watson
Respondent:
Chadwick Crabtree and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Allen v. S.C.D.C. et al
as 4:2022cv01650
Petitioner:
William Dale Allen, Sr and William D. Allen, Sr.
Respondent:
S.C.D.C., The State of South Carolina and Warden Broad River Correctional Institution
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2020cv00838
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Allen v. Stirling
as 4:2020cv01716
Plaintiff:
William Dale Allen, Sr. and William D. Allen
Defendant:
Bryan Peter Stirling
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jaeger v. Graddick et al (INMATE 3)
as 2:2019cv01035
Defendant:
Joseph Headley, Charles Graddick and Steven T. Marshall
Plaintiff:
William Dale Jeager and William Dale Jaeger
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Bramlett v. Valenza et al (INMATE 2)
as 1:2019cv00377
Defendant:
Donald Valenza, Jason Smoak and James Brazier
Plaintiff:
William Dale Bramlett
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Bramlett v. Valenza et al (INMATE 2)
as 1:2019cv00369
Defendant:
Donald Valenza, Tony Murphy and James Brazier
Plaintiff:
William Dale Bramlett
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Bramlett v. Valenza et al (INMATE 2)
as 1:2019cv00187
Defendant:
Donald Valenza, Officer Caine and Commander Brazier
Plaintiff:
William Dale Bramlett
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DEDRICK et al v. BANET
as 4:2018cv00183
Plaintiff:
WESLEY D. STOCKTON, TOBIAS JONES, RAYMOND CARR, JR. and others
Defendant:
BANET
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
