US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 91 - 100 of 1,565
Lovett v. Fisher
as 1:2022cv00039
Petitioner:
Jessica Lovett
Respondent:
Warden Gloria Fisher
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Leberry v. Phillips
as 3:2022cv00759
Petitioner:
Ronnell Jason Dupree Leberry
Respondent:
Sean Phillips
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Robinson v. Frink
as 3:2022cv00753
Petitioner:
Louis Tyrone Robinson
Respondent:
Warden Martin Frink
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Starks v. United States Government
as 3:2022cv00731
Petitioner:
Ricky Starks
Respondent:
United States Government
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Wilson v. State of Tennessee
as 3:2022cv00707
Petitioner:
James Wilson
Respondent:
State of Tennessee
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Savely v. Eller
as 3:2022cv00701
Petitioner:
Antywan Savely
Respondent:
Assistant Warden f/n/u Eller
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Young v. Hudson
as 3:2022cv00687
Petitioner:
Carlos M. Young
Respondent:
(f/n/u) Hudson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Burley v. State of Tennessee, The
as 3:2022cv00679
Petitioner:
Ivan Antjuan Burley
Respondent:
State of Tennessee, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Vaughn v. State of Tennessee
as 3:2022cv00663
Petitioner:
Christopher Vaughn
Respondent:
State of Tennessee and Daron Hall
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Linsey v. Boyd
as 3:2022cv00661
Petitioner:
Christopher Demotto Linsey
Respondent:
Warden Bert Boyd
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.
