Texas Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 61 - 70 of 41,888
Ortiz v. Bobby Lumpkin
as 4:2024cv01608
Petitioner:
Anthony Ortiz
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Thomas v. Lumpkin
as 6:2024cv00150
Petitioner:
Antoine Thomas
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Davis v. Lumpkin
as 4:2024cv01514
Petitioner:
Michael William Davis
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
McCoy v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 3:2024cv00985
Petitioner:
James McCoy
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Gibson v. Terry County Sheriff
as 5:2024cv00104
Petitioner:
Charles Ray Gibson, Jr.
Respondent:
Terry County Sheriff
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Garcia v. Director, TDCJ
as 6:2024cv00149
Petitioner:
Antonio Andres Garcia
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Barraza v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 3:2024cv00138
Petitioner:
Alex Barraza
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Webb v. Lumpkin
as 4:2024cv01502
Petitioner:
Everette Dale Webb
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Campos v. Lumpkin
as 2:2024cv00095
Petitioner:
John Michael Campos
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Thomas v. Lumpkin DO NOT DOCKET. Case transferred to Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division.
as 4:2024cv01466
Petitioner:
Antoine Thomas
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
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.
