US District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 21 - 30 of 2,565
Caughron v. United States of America
as 4:2024cv00511
Plaintiff:
Jesse Wayne Caughron
Defendant:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
Clark v. Harding
as 4:2024cv00505
Petitioner:
David Clark
Respondent:
Randy Harding
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Ragin v. Margaret Green
as 4:2024cv00493
Petitioner:
Stanley Derrick Ragin, III
Respondent:
Margaret Green
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Tackett v. Hallet et al
as 4:2024cv00494
Defendant:
Cody Lowen and Sheriff of Nowata County, Oklahoma
Plaintiff:
Sarah Tackett
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Mitchell v. USA
as 4:2024cv00490
Petitioner:
Paul David Mitchell, II
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
Fernandez v. Harpe
as 4:2024cv00489
Petitioner:
Eric Fernandez
Respondent:
Steven Harpe
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Ramirez-Benitez v. USA
as 4:2024cv00487
Petitioner:
Misahel Ramirez-Benitez
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
Wilson v. District Court of Tulsa County et al
as 4:2024cv00469
Defendant:
District Court of Tulsa County and Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
Plaintiff:
Garry Wayne Wilson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Paris v. Carrocia et al
as 4:2024cv00470
Plaintiff:
LaDonna Paris
Defendant:
Ronni Carrocia, Ty Burns, City of Tulsa, The and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Rayburn v. West Siloam Springs Police
as 4:2024cv00464
Plaintiff:
Jesse James Rayburn
Defendant:
West Siloam Springs Police
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.
