Cases 121 - 130 of 11,019
Bryant v. Truong et al
as 5:2024cv00649
Defendant:
Vicki Behenna, Emily Grossnicklaus and Cindy H Truong
Plaintiff:
William Bryant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Sanz-Carver v. Oklahoma County District Court
as 6:2024cv00218
Respondent:
Oklahoma County District Court
Petitioner:
Kyle Sanz-Carver
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Sutton v. McClendon
as 6:2024cv00219
Respondent:
Frankie McClendon
Petitioner:
Joshua Lamont Sutton
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Smith v. United States of America
as 5:2024cv00646
Respondent:
United States of America
Petitioner:
Nicois Megale Smith
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
Reynolds v. Bridges
as 5:2024cv00641
Petitioner:
Frank M Reynolds
Respondent:
Carrie Bridges
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jackson v. Cole
as 5:2024cv00647
Petitioner:
James Jackson
Respondent:
David Cole
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Neal v. Sheriff of Canadian County et al
as 5:2024cv00643
Defendant:
Turn Key Health Clinics LLC, Austin Moore, Sheriff of Canadian County and others
Plaintiff:
Laura Neal
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Martin v. Rodgers
as 5:2024cv00636
Respondent:
David Rodgers
Petitioner:
Dennis Martin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (state)
Peeples v. Rankins
as 4:2024cv00294
Respondent:
Chris Rankins
Petitioner:
Howard Eugene Peeples, Jr
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Brown v. State of Oklahoma et al
as 4:2024cv00297
Defendant:
State of Oklahoma and Judge Cliff Smith
Plaintiff:
Matthew Jason Brown
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
