Cases 21 - 30 of 2,004
Marshall v. Linter et al
as 6:2024cv00061
Plaintiff:
Rickie Charles Marshall, Jr and Rickie Charles Marshall, Jr.
Defendant:
Clay Linter, Chris Bryant, Devra Atwood and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Blake v. Jordan et al
as 6:2024cv00085
Plaintiff:
Tony Kent Blake
Defendant:
Suzanne Jordan, Terry Parks, Choctaw County and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jones v. Redbird Medical
as 6:2024cv00113
Plaintiff:
Paul Jones
Defendant:
Redbird Medical
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Skadal v. McIntosh County et al
as 6:2024cv00060
Plaintiff:
Aaron Skadal
Defendant:
McIntosh County, Kevin Ledbetter, Monica Smith and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Grayson v. Bridges
as 6:2024cv00110
Petitioner:
Milton D. Grayson, Jr.
Respondent:
Carrie Bridges
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Loggins v. Huffman et al
as 6:2024cv00108
Plaintiff:
Lee Anthony Loggins
Defendant:
J. Huffman, C. Kirkland, Unknown Agent and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Dye v. McIntosh County et al
as 6:2024cv00035
Plaintiff:
Jason Grant Dye
Defendant:
McIntosh County and Kevin Ledbetter
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jones v. Turnkey Medical Services
as 6:2024cv00031
Plaintiff:
Paul Jones
Defendant:
Sequoyah County Sheriff's Department and Turnkey Medical Services
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hunter v. Bridges
as 6:2024cv00096
Petitioner:
Walter D. Hunter
Respondent:
Carrie Bridges
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Travis v. Seminole Nation Tribal Court
as 6:2024cv00070
Petitioner:
Ralph Eugene Travis
Respondent:
Seminole Nation Tribal Court
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.
