Ohio Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 61 - 70 of 17,738
Singh v. Warden, Noble Correctional Institution
as 1:2024cv00156
Petitioner:
tarranpreet singh
Respondent:
Warden Noble Correctional Institution
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Holmes v. Davis et al
as 3:2024cv00091
Plaintiff:
Brian Isiah Holmes, Jr.
Defendant:
Mike Davis and Chaplain Alfred Marcus
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Holmes v. Davis et al
as 2:2024cv01426
Plaintiff:
Brian Isiah Holmes, Jr.
Defendant:
Mike Davis and Chaplain Alfred Marcus
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Baker v. County of Mahoning et al.
as 4:2024cv00530
Plaintiff:
Nathan L Baker
Defendant:
County of Mahoning, Sheriff Jerry Greene, Warden Kountz and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Goins v. O'Donnell
as 1:2024cv00529
Plaintiff:
Justin Goins
Defendant:
Warden O'Donnell
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Mason v. Warden North Central Correctional Institution
as 2:2024cv01304
Petitioner:
David Mason
Respondent:
Warden North Central Correctional Institution
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Cannon v. USA
as 1:2024cv00518
Petitioner:
Doyal R. Cannon
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
Smith v. Reynolds
as 1:2024cv00517
Petitioner:
Gage L. Smith
Respondent:
Warden Stephen Reynolds
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Shomer v. Rheinscheld
as 2:2024cv01283
Plaintiff:
Zachary Houston Shomer
Defendant:
Amber Marie Rheinscheld and Lt. Williams
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Eckstein v. Lloyd et al.
as 1:2024cv00514
Plaintiff:
Andrew Eckstein
Defendant:
Inspector Diane Lloyd, Warden Jennifer Black and Lutinent D. Thrasher
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.
