Cases 11 - 20 of 188
Kelley v. Stitt, et al
as 23-6200
Plaintiff / Appellant:
PHILLIP LEE KELLEY
Defendant / Appellee:
KEVIN STITT, Governor, in his official and individual capacity, LARRY MORRIS, Pardon & Parole Board member, in his official and individual capacity, ADAM LUCK, Pardon & Parole Board member, in his official and individual capacity and others
Morris v. FCI El Reno
as 5:2023cv01042
Petitioner:
Tom Franklin Morris
Respondent:
FCI El Reno
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
United States v. Morris
as 23-3202
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
DANILLE MORRIS
Glidewell v. Stitt et al
as 5:2023cv00863
Plaintiff:
Dennis Lee Glidewell
Defendant:
Kevin Stitt, Larry Morris, Adam Luck and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Bachicha v. Foreman et al
as 1:2023cv00835
Plaintiff:
Timothy Bachicha
Defendant:
Mark Foreman, FNU Morris, FNU Gradiska and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Isbill v. Stitt et al
as 5:2023cv00831
Plaintiff:
George Isbill
Defendant:
Kevin Stitt, Larry Morris, Adam Luck and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Stewart v. Stitt et al
as 5:2023cv00832
Plaintiff:
Anthony Stewart
Defendant:
Kevin Stitt, Larry Morris, Adam Luck and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Chaney v. Stitt et al
as 5:2023cv00824
Plaintiff:
Larry Chaney
Defendant:
Kevin Stitt, Larry Morris, Adam Luck and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Kelley v. Stitt et al
as 5:2023cv00747
Plaintiff:
Phillip Lee Kelley, George Isbill, Rocky Ward and others
Defendant:
Kevin Stitt, Larry Morris, Adam Luck and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Morris v. State of Oklahoma
as 23-6101
Petitioner / Appellant:
PRENTISS MORRIS
Respondent / Appellee:
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
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.
