Arkansas Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 51 - 60 of 3,784
McElroy v. Doe
as 5:2024cv05031
Plaintiff:
Jerel McElroy
Defendant:
Doe
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
McElroy v. Doe
as 4:2024cv00084
Plaintiff:
Jerel McElroy
Defendant:
Doe
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Crawford v. Payne
as 4:2024cv00083
Plaintiff:
Correy Crawford
Defendant:
Dexter Payne
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Guthrie v. State of Arkansas Board of Parole
as 4:2024cv04012
Petitioner:
Norman Clay Guthrie
Respondent:
State of Arkansas Board of Parole
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Parks v. Payne
as 4:2024cv00069
Plaintiff:
Travis Parks
Defendant:
Dexter Payne
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Dial v. Byers
as 6:2024cv06007
Petitioner:
Johnathan Dial
Respondent:
Jared Byers
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Fitts v. Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services Children Division, Carroll County et al
as 3:2024cv03009
Petitioner:
Colby Blake Fitts
Respondent:
Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services Children Division, Carroll County and Carroll County Circuit Court
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Watkins v. Payne
as 4:2024cv00041
Plaintiff:
Jeffrey Lynn Watkins
Defendant:
Doe and Dexter Payne
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Brown v. Garrett
as 2:2024cv00008
Plaintiff:
Shane Michael Brown
Defendant:
Doe and C Garrett
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Conley v. Gibson
as 4:2024cv00044
Plaintiff:
Gary L Conley
Defendant:
James Gibson
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.
