Fifth Circuit Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 1 - 10 of 65,729
Fowler v. Colbert
as 3:2023cv03112
Plaintiff:
Steven Fowler
Defendant:
Warden Colbert
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Kirkendoll v. Warden
as 5:2023cv00142
Petitioner:
Bobby B. Kirkendoll
Respondent:
FCI Texarkana Warden
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Sosa v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 9:2023cv00220
Petitioner:
Eddie R. Sosa
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Longazel v. Collier
as 6:2023cv00817
Petitioner:
Christopher John Longazel
Respondent:
Brian Collier
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Longazel v. Collier
as 6:2023cv00818
Petitioner:
Christopher John Longazel
Respondent:
Brian Collier
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Williams v. Lumpkin
as 23-20578
Petitioner / Appellant:
Jaylan Rochard Williams, Sr.
Respondent / Appellee:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Tate v. Lumpkin
as 4:2023cv04480
Petitioner:
Marquis Valantee Tate
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Campbell v. Lumpkin
as 4:2023cv04484
Petitioner:
Reginald Campbell
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Harrison v. Lumpkin
as 4:2023cv04486
Petitioner:
Wendell Harrison
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Anderson v. Warden FPC La Tuna
as 3:2023cv00431
Petitioner:
Dwayne Keith Anderson
Respondent:
Warden FPC La Tuna
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.
