Oklahoma Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 71 - 80 of 10,821
Weeley v. USA
as 4:2024cv00115
Petitioner:
Christopher Leo Weeley
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
Heavener v. Harding
as 4:2024cv00114
Petitioner:
John E Heavener
Defendant:
Randy Harding
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Morrison v. Biden
as 5:2024cv00274
Petitioner:
Phillip Morrison
Respondent:
Joe Biden
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (state)
Daniels v. Harding
as 5:2024cv00270
Petitioner:
David L Daniels
Respondent:
FNU Harding
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
ARRINGTON v. BUREAU OF PRISONS et al
as 5:2024cv00265
Plaintiff:
Derrek E Arrington
Defendant:
Bureau of Prisons and DESIGNATION, SENTENCE, & COMPUTATION CENTER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jackson v. Hicks et al
as 5:2024cv00267
Plaintiff:
Corey Jackson
Defendant:
Jason Hicks, Cortnie Siess, Melody Harper and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Livingston v. City of Tulsa et al
as 4:2024cv00111
Plaintiff:
Aaron J Livingston also known as Clarke doing business as Gtwo and Clarke
Defendant:
City of Tulsa and Tulsa Police Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Palmer v. Farrow
as 6:2024cv00084
Plaintiff:
David M. Palmer
Defendant:
Nancy Farrow
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Blake v. Jordan et al
as 6:2024cv00085
Plaintiff:
Tony Kent Blake
Defendant:
Suzanne Jordan, Terry Parks, Choctaw County and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
MORGAN et al v. BIDEN
as 5:2024cv00264
Petitioner:
David Brian Morgan, Kirk Brogie, Ernest Draper and others
Respondent:
Joseph Biden
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
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.
