US District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 51 - 60 of 2,490
Yargee v. Rogers
as 4:2023cv00501
Petitioner:
David Yargee
Respondent:
David Rogers
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Sago v. USA
as 4:2023cv00492
Petitioner:
Kyle Quentin Sago
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
Brewer v. Regalado et al
as 4:2023cv00483
Petitioner:
Renel Anthony Brewer
Respondent:
Victor Regalado, Eric Kitch and Gentner F Drummond
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Kolosha v. Rogers
as 4:2023cv00481
Petitioner:
Vitaly Kolosha
Respondent:
David Rogers
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Washington v. City of Tulsa, The, et al.
as 4:2023cv00467
Defendant:
Jermaine Torrey Washington, City of Tulsa, The, District Attorneys Office and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Davison v Harpe
as 4:2023cv00456
Petitioner:
Alonzo G Davison
Respondent:
Steven Harpe
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Walker v. USA
as 4:2023cv00454
Petitioner:
Amanda Lyn Walker
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
Leonard v. Walton et al
as 4:2023cv00451
Plaintiff:
David Wayne Leonard
Defendant:
Scott Walton, K. Jones, Turn Key Health Clinics, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Barnett v. Regalado et al
as 4:2023cv00445
Plaintiff:
Christopher J Barnett, Christopher J Magnum and Chris Mangum
Defendant:
Vic Regalado, Chaplin Bell, Chaplin Smiley and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Lasley v. Harpe
as 4:2023cv00446
Petitioner:
Tori Lynn Lasley
Respondent:
Steven Harpe
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.
