US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 71 - 80 of 2,579
SISTRUNK v. COUNTRYMAN
as 4:2023cv00149
Petitioner:
TREVIS TYRELL SISTRUNK
Respondent:
Sheriff GREGORY COUNTRYMAN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
FLORENCE v. COUNTRYMAN et al
as 4:2023cv00146
Petitioner:
KIM CAMILLE FLORENCE
Respondent:
Sheriff GREG COUNTRYMAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY STACEY JACKSON, CALVIN PARKER and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
BARBER v. TELFAIR STATE PRISON
as 1:2023cv00122
Petitioner:
DANIEL BARBER
Respondent:
TELFAIR STATE PRISON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
EDWARDS v. GILLIS
as 7:2023cv00082
Petitioner:
PHIRRONNIUS EDWARDS
Respondent:
Warden SHAWN GILLIS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
TOOMER v. ADAMS
as 1:2023cv00119
Petitioner:
KASAEM BERNARD TOOMER
Respondent:
TYRONE OLIVER and Warden ROBERT ADAMS, JR
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
BUSSEY v. BOBBITT
as 5:2023cv00273
Petitioner:
ARTHUR SHERMAINE BUSSEY
Respondent:
WARDEN BOBBITT
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
PATTERSON v. WILKES
as 5:2023cv00267
Petitioner:
DANIEL RAY PATTERSON
Defendant:
WARDEN SCOTT WILKES
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Patterson
as 1:2023cv00116
Petitioner:
Daniel Ray Patterson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
PERSON v. STATE OF GEORGIA
as 5:2023cv00253
Petitioner:
EDWARD PERSON
Respondent:
STATE OF GEORGIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
ROSS v. WARDEN BEASLEY
as 5:2023cv00251
Petitioner:
CAREY LECELL ROSS
Respondent:
WARDEN BEASLEY
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.
