Cases 91 - 100 of 1,018
Robert Sparks v. Lorie Davis, Director
as 18-70013
Petitioner - Appellant:
ROBERT SPARKS
Respondent - Appellee:
LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION
John Gardner v. Lorie Davis, Director
as 18-70012
Petitioner - Appellant:
JOHN STEVEN GARDNER
Respondent - Appellee:
LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION
Erica Sheppard v. Lorie Davis, Director
as 18-70011
Petitioner - Appellant:
ERICA YVONNE SHEPPARD
Respondent - Appellee:
LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION
Rosendo Rodriguez, III v. Lorie Davis, Director
as 18-70010
Petitioner - Appellant:
ROSENDO RODRIGUEZ, III
Respondent - Appellee:
LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION
Bell v. Vannoy
as 3:2018cv00196
Plaintiff:
Anthony Bell
Defendant:
Darrel Vannoy
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
USA v. Brandon Bernard
as 18-70008
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
BRANDON BERNARD
Steven Butler v. Lorie Davis, Director
as 18-70006
Petitioner - Appellant:
STEVEN ANTHONY BUTLER
Respondent - Appellee:
LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION
USA v. Christopher Vialva
as 18-70007
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
CHRISTOPHER ANDRE VIALVA
Anibal Canales, Jr. v. Lorie Davis, Director
as 18-70009
Petitioner - Appellant:
ANIBAL CANALES, JR.
Respondent - Appellee:
LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION
Bess v. Davis, Director TDCJ-CID
as 3:2016cv01150
Petitioner:
Donald Andrew Bess
Respondent:
Lorie Davis, Director TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
