Tenth Circuit Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 1 - 10 of 10,000
Davis v. Rogers
as 4:2026cv00714
Respondent:
David Rogers
Petitioner:
Jeffery Allen Davis
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Allen v. Robberson et al
as 6:2026cv00404
Defendant:
Current Appropriate ODOC Officials, Current ODOC Medical Officials, Sheriff Ismail and others
Plaintiff:
Bradley Thornton Allen
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Brown v. McKeown et al
as 5:2026cv03284
Defendant:
ODOC, Richard Galloway, Dwayne Branam and others
Plaintiff:
Edward Renardo Brown, Sr
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
JEPTOO v. Baltazar et al
as 1:2026cv06065
Respondent:
Nathan Rasper, Markwayne Mullin, David J Venturella and others
Petitioner:
WINNY JEPTOO
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in - Habeas Corpus: INS
Thomas v. USA
as 4:2026cv00712
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
Byron Cordell Thomas
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
Martinez v. Uinta County District Attorney et al
as 2:2026cv00347
Defendant:
Uinta County District Court, James Kaste, Jack Vreeland and others
Plaintiff:
Donnalisa Marie Martinez
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Crump v. Olson, et al
as 26-1456
Respondent:
P. MORRISEY, the Attorney General of the State of West Virginia and OLSON, Warden
Petitioner:
NORVELL WEBSTER CRUMP
Reed v. Drummond
as 5:2026cv03281
Defendant:
Gentner Drummond
Plaintiff:
Chad William Reed
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2026cv06043
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 - Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2026cv06032
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 - Petition for Writ of Mandamus
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.
