US District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 1 - 10 of 6,313
DeJesus v. Grady County Law Enforcement Center
as 5:2024cv00373
Plaintiff:
Alexis DeJesus
Defendant:
Grady County Law Enforcement Center
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Randle-Giles v. Davis et al
as 5:2024cv00362
Plaintiff:
Edgar Royce Randle-Giles
Defendant:
Bradley Davis and Enid Police Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Johnson v. Harding
as 5:2024cv00355
Petitioner:
Michael D Johnson
Respondent:
Randy Harding
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Christian v. United States of America
as 5:2024cv00353
Respondent:
United States of America
Petitioner:
James Cornelius Christian
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
Purdy v. Harpe
as 5:2024cv00348
Petitioner:
Aaron C Purdy
Respondent:
Steven Harpe
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Garcia v. Drummond
as 5:2024cv00341
Petitioner:
Harry Garcia
Respondent:
Gentner Drummond
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Spalding v. United States of America
as 5:2024cv00337
Petitioner:
David L Spalding
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Mendenhall v. Union City Community Corrections Center
as 5:2024cv00336
Plaintiff:
Jessie Mendenhall
Defendant:
Union City Community Corrections Center
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
McDonald v. Lilly et al
as 5:2024cv00335
Plaintiff:
Alexis McDonald, Jr
Defendant:
Amanda Lilly, Garfield County Detention Center and Oklahoma State of
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Romero v. Harpe et al
as 5:2024cv00325
Plaintiff:
Albert Andrew Romero
Defendant:
Steven Harpe, Susan Campbell and Robert Nogel
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.
