US District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 61 - 70 of 1,177
King v. Harpe
as 4:2023cv00094
Plaintiff:
Robert Eugene King
Defendant:
Steven Harpe
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Thompson v. Parker
as 4:2023cv00079
Petitioner:
Maurice L Thompson
Respondent:
David Parker and Vic Regalado, Tulsa County Sheriff in his Official Capacity
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Allen v. Pettigrew
as 4:2023cv00064
Petitioner:
Wayne L Allen
Respondent:
Tom Bates and Luke Pettigrew
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Adair v. Rankin
as 4:2023cv00061
Plaintiff:
Steven Lee Adair
Defendant:
Chris Rankin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Leonard v. Bridges
as 4:2023cv00055
Petitioner:
Don D Leonard
Respondent:
Scott Crow and Carrie Bridges
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Musonda v. Harvanek
as 4:2023cv00030
Petitioner:
Lubuto Musonda
Respondent:
Kameron Harvanek
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
McGill v. Rankin
as 4:2023cv00010
Petitioner:
Tracy J McGill
Respondent:
William Rankin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Matlock v. Clayton
as 4:2023cv00011
Petitioner:
Michael Aron Matlock
Respondent:
Deon Clayton
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Ellis v. Farris
as 4:2022cv00567
Petitioner:
Antonio Leon Ellis
Respondent:
State of Oklahoma, The and Jim Farris
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Price v. Harpe
as 4:2022cv00566
Petitioner:
Darren Lee Price, Jr
Respondent:
Steven Harpe
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.
