Cases 61 - 70 of 1,602
Francis v. Harris County Sheriff Office
as 4:2023cv03147
Plaintiff:
Xavier Jamal Francis
Defendant:
Harris County Sheriff Office
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Curry, Jr. v. Lumpkin-Director TDCJ-CID
as 4:2023cv03144
Petitioner:
George Thomas Curry, Jr.
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin-Director TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus(Death Penalty)
Slayton v. Gonzalez
as 4:2023cv03114
Petitioner:
Kelly Elaine Slayton
Respondent:
Ed Gonzalez
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Shepherd, Jr. v. Texas Department Of Public Safety et al
as 4:2023cv03085
Plaintiff:
Steve Shepherd, Jr.
Defendant:
Texas Department Of Public Safety, Sex Offender Apprehension and Registration and Bell County Sheriff's Office
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Burke v. Cardiff et al
as 4:2023cv02920
Plaintiff:
Andrew Burke
Defendant:
Durelle Cardiff, Dr. James David, Judge Chad Bridges and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Rosamond v. Lumpkin
as 4:2023cv02966
Plaintiff:
Dwight D Rosamond
Defendant:
Bobbie Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Sophus v. Lumpkin et al
as 4:2023cv02815
Plaintiff:
Clyde Eugene Sophus
Defendant:
Bobby Lumpkin and Chairman David Gutierrez
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jones v. Lumpkin
as 4:2023cv02753
Petitioner:
Willie James Jones
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
West v. Lumpkin
as 4:2023cv02702
Petitioner:
Harry David West
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Bernard v. Gonzalez
as 4:2023cv02673
Petitioner:
John Davis Bernard, Jr.
Respondent:
Ed Gonzalez
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.
