Fourth Circuit Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 1 - 10 of 36,554
Jones v. Ishee
as 1:2024cv00138
Petitioner:
Rodney Moucell Jones
Respondent:
Todd E. Ishee
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Brandon Pickens v. Todd Ishee
as 24-6439
Petitioner:
BRANDON MICHAEL PICKENS
Respondent:
TODD E. ISHEE, Secretary of North Carolina Department of Adult Corrections
Raminder Kaur v. Robert Green
as 24-6440
Petitioner:
RAMINDER KAUR
Respondent:
ROBERT L. GREEN and CAROL HARMON
As-Salafi v. Brown
as 3:2024cv00053
Petitioner:
Abdul-Malik As-Salafi
Respondent:
Warden Brown
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
COTE v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
as 2:2024cv02859
Petitioner:
RICHARD PAUL COTE
Respondent:
Federal Bureau of Prisons and Warden Graham
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Britney Bates v. Chadwick Dotson
as 24-6431
Petitioner:
BRITNEY ODELL BATES
Respondent:
CHADWICK DOTSON, in his official capacity as Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections
Montgomery v. Kelly
as 5:2024hc02091
Petitioner:
Louvertis Kayonne Montgomery
Respondent:
Warden Lynne B. Kelly
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Rembold v. Bohrer et al
as 1:2024cv01328
Petitioner:
Donald G. Rembold
Respondent:
William S. Bohrer and Maryland Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
TERRY v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
as 1:2024cv00385
Petitioner:
DOYLE KENT TERRY
Respondent:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Bell v. United States et al
as 2:2024cv00233
Petitioner:
Jaylen Dalaino Bell
Respondent:
United States and Jackson County of Ripley, West Virginia
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
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.
