Oklahoma Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 61 - 70 of 10,821
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)
Williamson v. Garfield County Detention Facility et al
as 5:2024cv00289
Plaintiff:
Justice Walter Williamson
Defendant:
Garfield County Detention Facility, Amanda Lilly and Enid County Police Station
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hunter v. Bridges
as 5:2024cv00286
Petitioner:
Walter D Hunter
Respondent:
Carrie Bridges
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Brown v. Lane
as 5:2024cv00285
Petitioner:
Curtis Tyrone Brown
Respondent:
Reece Lane
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Stripling v. Regalado et al
as 4:2024cv00117
Plaintiff:
Michael Stripling
Defendant:
Vic Regalado, Chaplin Bell and Smiley Elmore
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)
Edward v. McIntosh County, et al.
as 6:2024cv00097
Plaintiff:
Frank Edward, Jr.
Defendant:
McIntosh County, et al.,, Kevin Ledbetter, Monica Smith and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Begay v. Bridges
as 6:2024cv00094
Petitioner:
Stacey Begay
Respondent:
Carrie Bridges
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Truitt v. Mcdougle et al
as 5:2024cv00277
Plaintiff:
Jessie F Truitt, III
Defendant:
Mike Mcdougle, Susanne Campbell, FNU Madden and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
