US District Court for the Western District of Kentucky Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 71 - 80 of 1,124
Stokes v. Collins
as 3:2022cv00246
Petitioner:
Tykesha Stokes
Respondent:
Jerry Collins and Daniel Cameron
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Burke v. Robey
as 1:2022cv00047
Petitioner:
Thomas Edward Burke, Jr.
Respondent:
Amy Robey
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Renfro v. People of the State of Kentucky
as 3:2022cv00230
Petitioner:
Phillip W. Renfro
Respondent:
People of the State of Kentucky
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Banks v. Ferguson
as 1:2022cv00045
Petitioner:
Randall E. Banks
Respondent:
Jessie Ferguson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Pollard v. Hughs
as 4:2022cv00051
Petitioner:
Deangelo Pollard
Respondent:
Craig Hughs
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Martinez v. Jordan
as 4:2022cv00049
Plaintiff:
Leonel Miranda Martinez
Defendant:
Warden Scott Jordan
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Renfro v. Robey
as 3:2022cv00190
Petitioner:
Phillip W. Renfro
Defendant:
Amy Robey
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Dowell v. Ferguson
as 3:2022cv00181
Petitioner:
Alex Lorenzo Dowell
Respondent:
Jesse Ferguson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Kraus v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
as 3:2022cv00134
Petitioner:
Karl Kraus, Jr.
Respondent:
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Rainey v. Clark et al
as 3:2022cv00053
Petitioner:
Rico Rayshon Rainey
Defendant:
Clark and Kristi Gray
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
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.
