Texas Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 91 - 100 of 41,963
Easton v. USA
as 2:2024cv00094
Petitioner:
Joseph Michael Easton
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Matthews v. Federal Medical Center Warden
as 4:2024cv00405
Petitioner:
Eric Martin Matthews
Respondent:
Federal Medical Center Warden
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Ross v. USA
as 2:2024cv00095
Petitioner:
Jeremy Damon Ross
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Apodaca v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 2:2024cv00093
Petitioner:
Victor Andrew Apodaca
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Busby v. State of Texas
as 3:2024cv01099
Petitioner:
Wyatt Busby
Respondent:
State of Texas
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Garcia v. Lumpkin; Do not docket in 2:24-cv-110. Case is consolidated under 2:24-cv-108.
as 2:2024cv00110
Petitioner:
Antoino Andres Garcia
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Olvera-Galvan v. Warden, FCI Beaumont Low
as 1:2024cv00155
Petitioner:
Francisco Javier Olvera-Galvan
Respondent:
Warden, FCI Beaumont Low
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Lester v. Lumpkin
as 5:2024cv00470
Petitioner:
Timmy Heath Lester
Respondent:
Director of TDCJ Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Dailey v. TDCJ
as 6:2024cv00167
Petitioner:
Anthony Ray Dailey
Respondent:
TDCJ
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Trejo v. Salazar
as 5:2024cv00469
Petitioner:
Anthony Robert Trejo
Respondent:
Sheriff Javier Salazar
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
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.
