US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 21 - 30 of 2,302
MOORE v. CASSIDY
as 1:2024cv00021
Petitioner:
ANDREW SCOTT MOORE
Respondent:
DAVID CASSIDY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
HILL v. BUFFALO
as 1:2024cv00025
Petitioner:
SIMARON D. HILL
Respondent:
EDDIE BUFFALO
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
NEAL v. USA
as 1:2024cv00015
Petitioner:
CHRISTOPHER LEE NEAL
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Coram Nobis
PORTER v. KELLY
as 1:2023cv01094
Petitioner:
WAYNE PORTER
Respondent:
LB KELLY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
STREET v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 1:2023cv01096
Petitioner:
TIMOTHY LEON STREET
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
FLORES v. EDDIE M. BUFFALOE, JR.
as 1:2023cv01025
Petitioner:
JUAN C. FLORES
Respondent:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA and EDDIE M. BUFFALOE, JR.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
INGRAM v. BULLIS
as 1:2023cv00958
Petitioner:
ERIC ANTRON INGRAM
Respondent:
BRET BULLIS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
CLAWSON v SUPERINTENDENT, EASTERN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE
as 1:2023cv00937
Petitioner:
RANDY CLAWSON
Respondent:
SUPERINTENDENT, EASTERN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
BLACK v. COOPER
as 1:2023cv00920
Petitioner:
MARTINEZ ORLANDIS BLACK
Respondent:
BILLY COOPER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
SIMMONS v. HODGES
as 1:2023cv00926
Petitioner:
BILLY SIMMONS
Respondent:
BRUCE HODGES
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.
