Oklahoma Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 1 - 10 of 10,819
Johnson v. Oklahoma County Jail
as 5:2024cv00441
Plaintiff:
Christopher Lee Johnson
Defendant:
Oklahoma County Jail
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Colliver v. Pettigrew
as 4:2024cv00198
Petitioner:
Erich Dwayne Colliver
Respondent:
Luke Pettigrew
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Barnett v. Smith et al
as 5:2024cv00439
Petitioner:
Christopher J Barnett
Respondent:
Cynthia Smith, Carrie Bridges and John Masquelier
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Smith v. USA
as 4:2024cv00196
Petitioner:
Rodney Joe Smith
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
Ortner v. USA
as 4:2024cv00195
Petitioner:
Carl Gene Ortner, Jr
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
Runnels v. GEO Group Inc et al
as 5:2024cv00432
Plaintiff:
Savortae Runnels
Defendant:
GEO Group Inc, Emily Timms, FNU Henderson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Leach v. Smith et al
as 5:2024cv00433
Petitioner:
Nicholas J Leach
Respondent:
Cynthia Smith, Carrie Bridges and John Masquelier
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
GRAHAM v. BIDEN et al
as 5:2024cv00426
Petitioner:
Jonathan Graham
Respondent:
Joe Biden, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and Bureau of Prisons
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Simmons v. United States of America
as 5:2024cv00425
Respondent:
United States of America
Petitioner:
Bobby Dale Simmons
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
Armstrong v. Rankins
as 6:2024cv00148
Petitioner:
Ryan T. Armstrong
Respondent:
William Chris Rankins
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.
