Texas Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 1 - 10 of 102,467
Davis v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 6:2024cv00159
Petitioner:
Darryl Glenn Davis
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Davis v. USA
as 3:2024cv01048
Petitioner:
Jim Wesley Davis
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Cole v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 5:2024cv00110
Petitioner:
Benny L. Cole, Jr.
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2024cv01046
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Zimmerman v. Thomas et al
as 2:2024cv00088
Plaintiff:
Matthew Ivan Zimmerman
Defendant:
Sheriff Bryan Thomas, Chaplain Richard Ashford, Chief FNU Giles and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Montemayor v. Big Spring Police Department et al
as 5:2024cv00109
Plaintiff:
Frank Montemayor
Defendant:
Big Spring Police Department, Howard County Sheriffs Office, FNU Reed and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
JACKSON v. UNKNOWN MAKER OF ZANTAC RANITIDINE et al
as 2:2024cv00104
Plaintiff:
Roy Wayne Jackson, Jr.
Defendant:
UNKNOWN MAKER OF ZANTAC RANITIDINE, CMC Pharmacy and University Texas Medical Branch
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Cardenas v. Lumpkin
as 5:2024cv00443
Petitioner:
Isaac Cardenas
Respondent:
Major Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2024cv00379
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Little v. United States of America - B.O.P et al
as 1:2024cv00059
Plaintiff:
Randall Little
Defendant:
United States of America - B.O.P, C Stern, Dr. FNU Winger and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
