US District Court for the Western District of Kentucky Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 1 - 10 of 1,102
Lynch v. Hughes
as 4:2023cv00099
Petitioner:
Donald M Lynch
Respondent:
Graig Hughes
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Harris v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
as 5:2023cv00114
Petitioner:
Brandon Harris
Respondent:
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Knights v. Jordan
as 3:2023cv00394
Petitioner:
Michael Lawrence Knights
Respondent:
Warden Scott Jordan
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 2254 Civil Forfeiture - Exploitation of Children
Welch v. Jordan
as 5:2023cv00105
Petitioner:
Ricky Lee Welch
Respondent:
Scott Jordan
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Williamson v. Wakefield et al
as 3:2023cv00339
Petitioner:
Antonio-Dionte Williamson
Respondent:
Tim Wakefield, Jeff Tindall, Craig Smith and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Violett v. Valentine
as 1:2023cv00075
Petitioner:
Donald Violett
Respondent:
Anna Valentine
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Kamau v. Tindal
as 3:2023cv00252
Petitioner:
Khalfani Kamau
Respondent:
Jeff Tindal
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Rhodes v. LMDC Jail et al
as 3:2023cv00282
Petitioner:
Brice Jamar Rhodes
Respondent:
LMDC Jail and Commonwealth
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Rhodes v. LMDC Jail et al
as 3:2023cv00232
Petitioner:
Brice Jamar Rhodes
Respondent:
LMDC Jail and Commonwealth
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Kesseh v. Robey
as 3:2023cv00213
Petitioner:
Alfred Kesseh
Respondent:
Amy Robey
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.
