Arizona Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 1 - 10 of 132
Carlson v. Thornell et al
as 4:2023cv00522
Petitioner:
Michael Jonathon Carlson
Respondent:
Ryan Thornell and Staci Ibarra
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution
Cromwell v. Thornell et al
as 2:2023cv00783
Petitioner:
Robert Louis Cromwell
Respondent:
Ryan Thornell and Staci Ibarra
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution
Anderson v. Shinn et al
as 3:2023cv08023
Petitioner:
Frank Winfield Anderson
Respondent:
David Shinn and Staci Ibarra
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution
Ovante v. Shinn et al
as 2:2022cv02003
Petitioner:
Manuel Ovante
Respondent:
David Shinn and Staci Ibarra
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution
Hooper v. Shinn et al
as 2:2022cv01935
Petitioner:
Murray Hooper
Respondent:
David Shinn, Staci Ibarra and Rodney Carr
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution
Womble v. Shinn et al
as 2:2022cv01429
Petitioner:
Brian Allen Womble
Respondent:
David Shinn and James Kimble
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution
Delahanty v. Shinn et al
as 2:2022cv00523
Petitioner:
Donald Delahanty
Respondent:
David Shinn, James Kimble and Jeffrey Van Winkle
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution
Gulbrandson v. Shinn et al
as 2:2022cv00276
Petitioner:
David Gulbrandson
Respondent:
David Shinn, Jeffrey Van Winkle and Stephen Morris
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution
Poyson v. Shinn
as 3:2021cv08259
Petitioner:
Robert Allen Poyson
Respondent:
David Shinn
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Gomez v. Shinn et al
as 2:2021cv01529
Petitioner:
Fabio Evelio Gomez
Respondent:
David Shinn, Walter Hensley and Jeff Van Winkle
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
