South Carolina Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 21 - 30 of 6,854
Johnson v. Laurens County et al
as 6:2024cv03651
Petitioner:
Randy Johnson
Respondent:
Alan Wilson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Wilkins v. Jackson
as 0:2024cv03620
Petitioner:
Johnny Ray Wilkins
Respondent:
Shane Jackson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Scarborough v. Early
as 1:2024cv03646
Petitioner:
Sammy Lee Scarborough
Respondent:
Curtis Early
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Smith v. State of South Carolina
as 4:2024cv03649
Petitioner:
Victor D. Smith
Respondent:
State of South Carolina
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Johnson v. Laurens County et al
as 4:2024cv03651
Petitioner:
Randy Johnson
Respondent:
Alan Wilson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Lisenby v. Streeval
as 5:2024cv03594
Petitioner:
Billy Lee Lisenby, Jr and Malik Al-Shabazz
Respondent:
Unit Manager J Streeval
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Lisenby v. Streeval
as 5:2024cv03593
Petitioner:
Billy Lee Lisenby, Jr and Malik Al-Shabazz
Respondent:
Warden J.C. Streeval
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Wright v. State of South Carolina
as 9:2024cv03557
Petitioner:
Timothy James Wright
Respondent:
State of South Carolina
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Campos v. Jackson
as 8:2024cv03510
Petitioner:
Filiberto Campos
Respondent:
Warden Shane Jackson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Brooks v. Jackson
as 1:2024cv03511
Petitioner:
Emonte Brooks
Respondent:
Shane Jackson
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.
