Cases 1 - 10 of 84
Romero v. Bureau of Prisons
as 2:2022cv00873
Petitioner:
Abel Romero
Respondent:
Bureau of Prisons
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Romero v. LNU et al
as 2:2022cv00730
Petitioner:
Joshua D Romero
Respondent:
FNU LNU and Attorney General for the State of New Mexico
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Salas v. Martinez et al
as 1:2022cv00040
Petitioner:
Lorenzo A. Salas
Respondent:
Leon Martinez, Anthony Romero and Hector H. Balderas
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Owens v. Romero et al
as 1:2020cv01110
Respondent:
Mike Romero and Attorney General of the State of Colorado, The
Petitioner:
Gregory Owens
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Soto et al v. Governor of the State of New Mexico, et al
as 1:2020cv00317
Petitioner:
Patrick Hopkins, Dainte D Sanders, Jonathan Duran and others
Respondent:
Governor of the State of New Mexico and FNU LNU
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Jones v. Romero et al
as 1:2020cv00734
Defendant:
No Named Defendants
Plaintiff:
Christopher Jones
Respondent:
Mike Romero, Dean Williams and Attorney General of the State of Colorado, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Lillie v. Romero et al
as 1:2020cv00410
Respondent:
Mike Romero and Colorado State Board of Adult Parole
Petitioner:
Jimmie Lillie
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 st
People of the State of Colorado v. Romero
as 1:2020cv00347
Plaintiff:
Phillip Steve Romero
Defendant:
People of the State of Colorado
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Sardakowski v. Romero
as 1:2019cv03164
Respondent:
Mike Romero
Petitioner:
James Sardakowski
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 st
Keener v. Romero et al
as 1:2019cv02872
Respondent:
Mike Romero and Attorney General of the State of Colorado, The
Petitioner:
Daryl L. Keener
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.
