US District Court for the Western District of Kentucky Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 11 - 20 of 5,489
Christian v. USA
as 3:2024cv00694
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
Brandon Christian
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
Bussell v. Shafer 219 et al
as 5:2024cv00178
Defendant:
Officer Flood 423, Trooper Thomas 309 and Officer Shafer 219
Plaintiff:
Barry L. Bussell
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Seal 1 v. USA
as 1:2024cv00139
Petitioner:
Charleslenzeo Sanchez Williams
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
Okum v. Smith et al
as 5:2024cv00176
Respondent:
Adam Smith and Christian County Jail
Petitioner:
Kevin Michael Okum
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 st Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Okum v. Smith
as 5:2024cv00177
Petitioner:
Kevin Michael Okum
Respondent:
Jailer Adam Smith
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Tyler v. McKenzie
as 4:2024cv00125
Petitioner:
Isaiah Tyler
Respondent:
Warden Shawn McKenzie
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jones v. Daviess County Detention Center et al
as 4:2024cv00127
Defendant:
Daviess County Detention Center and Arthur Maglinger
Plaintiff:
Travis S. Jones
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Gomez v. USA
as 3:2024cv00682
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
Nestor Ernesto Quevedo Gomez
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
Hayden v. USA
as 5:2024cv00169
Petitioner:
James Russell Hayden
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
Mudd v. Smith et al
as 5:2024cv00170
Defendant:
Bryan Rives, Adam Smith, Comprehinsive Corr. Care and others
Plaintiff:
Timothy J. Mudd
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.
