US District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 1 - 10 of 1,996
Edward, Jr. v. McIntosh County Board of Commissioners et al
as 6:2024cv00141
Plaintiff:
Frank Edward, Jr.
Defendant:
McIntosh County Board of Commissioners, Monica Smith and Mary Martin
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Weinert v. State of Oklahoma
as 6:2024cv00140
Petitioner:
Steven Alexander Weinert
Respondent:
State of Oklahoma
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Loftis v. Conway
as 6:2024cv00136
Plaintiff:
Embry Jay Loftis
Defendant:
Cody Conway
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Franklin v. Bryant et al
as 6:2024cv00131
Plaintiff:
Jason Javon Franklin
Defendant:
Chris Bryant, Carter County Detention Center, Devra Atwood 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
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
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)
Heavener v. Harding
as 6:2024cv00105
Petitioner:
John E Heavener
Defendant:
Randy Harding
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Carshall
as 6:2024cv00104
Petitioner:
Billy Carshall
Respondent:
Carrie Bridges
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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)
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.
