US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 61 - 70 of 8,123
BARTLEY v. USP WARDEN
as 2:2024cv00468
Respondent:
USP WARDEN
Petitioner:
GARY DANIEL BARTLEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
BAXTER v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF INDIANA
as 2:2024cv00469
Petitioner:
CHRISTOPHER BAXTER
Respondent:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF INDIANA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
JOHNSON v. GARDNER
as 1:2024cv01724
Petitioner:
KENNETH JOHNSON
Respondent:
GARDNER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
MAJORS v. ALLEN
as 1:2024cv01697
Respondent:
TRENT ALLEN
Petitioner:
JEFF ERICK MAJORS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
SNELLING v. WARDEN
as 2:2024cv00460
Respondent:
WARDEN
Petitioner:
JOSEPH SNELLING
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
ADAMS v. AKINDOYIN
as 1:2024cv01709
Respondent:
O. AKINDOYIN
Petitioner:
RONNIE ADAMS, JR.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
ADAMS v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF INDIANA
as 1:2024cv01710
Petitioner:
RONNIE ADAMS, JR.
Respondent:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF INDIANA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
STEELE v. SEVIER
as 1:2024cv01725
Respondent:
MARK SEVIER
Petitioner:
HOWARD STEELE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
GONZALEZ v. WARDEN
as 2:2024cv00467
Respondent:
WARDEN
Petitioner:
GILBERT ROMERO GONZALEZ
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
SCOTT v. WARDEN
as 1:2024cv01682
Petitioner:
JACKIE OWEN SCOTT
Respondent:
WARDEN
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.
