US District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 21 - 30 of 2,776
Sam v. Bridges
as 5:2024cv00161
Petitioner:
Harlan James Sam
Respondent:
Carrie Bridges
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Tolliver v. Harvanek
as 5:2024cv00104
Petitioner:
Timothy Fitzgerald Tolliver
Respondent:
Cameron Harvanek
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hanson v. Davis
as 5:2024cv00102
Petitioner:
Michael S. Hanson
Respondent:
Kelli Davis
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Reynolds v. Bridges
as 5:2024cv00082
Petitioner:
Frank M Reynolds
Respondent:
Carrie Bridges
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Cramer v. Bridges
as 5:2024cv00066
Petitioner:
Peter Eugene Cramer
Respondent:
Carrie Bridges
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
SEBASTIAN v. U.S. GOVERNMENT
as 5:2024cv00055
Petitioner:
GEORGE SEBASTIAN
Respondent:
United States Government
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Kolosha v. Rogers
as 5:2024cv00049
Petitioner:
Vitaly Kolosha
Respondent:
David Rogers
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (state)
Jones v. Oklahoma State of
as 5:2024cv00013
Petitioner:
William D Jones
Respondent:
Oklahoma State of
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Morgan v. Biden et al
as 5:2024cv00002
Petitioner:
David Brian Morgan
Respondent:
Joe Biden, United States, Bureau of Prisons and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
ABUAN v. BIDEN et al
as 5:2024cv00003
Petitioner:
Robert Abuan
Respondent:
Joe Biden, United States and Bureau of Prisons
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
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.
