US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 121 - 130 of 19,222
KAPETANIOS v. BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY JAIL et al
as 1:2024cv00863
Plaintiff:
JAMES MICHAEL KAPETANIOS, SR.
Defendant:
BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY JAIL, COURTNEY FISCHER, LYDIA JOHN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
DUNN v. WARDEN
as 2:2024cv00191
Petitioner:
ADRIAN L. DUNN, SR.
Respondent:
WARDEN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
TINSLEY v. USA
as 1:2024cv00865
Petitioner:
GARY TINSLEY
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
YOUNG v. BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY JAIL et al
as 1:2024cv00861
Plaintiff:
STEVEN RAY YOUNG
Defendant:
BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY JAIL, ARN HOLT, LYDIA JOHN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
STOVER v. DIVISION OF INDIANA
as 1:2024cv00870
Petitioner:
JESSE JAMES STOVER
Respondent:
DIVISION OF INDIANA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
WOOD v. WARDEN
as 3:2024cv00087
Petitioner:
CHAD WOOD
Respondent:
WARDEN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
LAMPLEY v. BRANCHVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY et al
as 3:2024cv00085
Plaintiff:
TOMMY LAMPLEY
Defendant:
BRANCHVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, COMMISSIONER OF I.D.O.C., KYLE THOMAS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
TAYLOR v. WARDEN
as 1:2024cv00853
Petitioner:
CHAD ALAN TAYLOR
Respondent:
WARDEN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
HAMILTON v. PRETORIUS
as 2:2024cv00185
Petitioner:
MITCHELL HAMILTON
Respondent:
PRETORIUS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
SHELLY v. VANIHEL
as 2:2024cv00187
Plaintiff:
MARZONO SHELLY
Defendant:
FRANK VANIHEL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
