Cases 11 - 20 of 2,161
Lay v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections et al
as 5:2024cv01027
Defendant:
Oklahoma Department of Corrections and OSBI
Plaintiff:
Develin Dion Ray Lay
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Lay v. Clock et al
as 5:2024cv01028
Defendant:
Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Jimmy Clock and FNU Reynolds
Plaintiff:
Develin Dion Ray Lay
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Smith v. State of Oklahoma et al
as 6:2024cv00352
Defendant:
State of Oklahoma, City of Eufaula, Oklahoma, Board of Commissioners for the County of McIntosh and others
Plaintiff:
Ervin Ray Smith
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Romo v. Ninth Judicial District Court et al
as 2:2024cv00940
Petitioner:
Anthony Ray Romo
Respondent:
Ninth Judicial District Court and Curry County Adult Detention Center
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Laskey v. USA
as 4:2024cv00441
Petitioner:
Millard Ray Laskey
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
Foltyniewicz v. City of Tahlequah et al
as 6:2024cv00331
Defendant:
Ryan Young, Ray Hammons and Tahlequah, City of
Plaintiff:
Randall Foltyniewicz
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Singleton v. Trulite Glass & Aluminum Solutions, LLC et al
as 6:2024cv00320
Defendant:
Jimmy Ray and Trulite Glass & Aluminum Solutions, LLC
Plaintiff:
Sandra Singleton
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle
Shores v. Williams, et al
as 24-1345
Defendant:
JOHN DOE, Exec. Director of CCA, PAMELA DANG, Grievance Responder, AMY, Nurse, CTCF and others
Plaintiff:
DONALD RAY SHORES
Smith v. Eufaula, City of et al.
as 6:2024cv00315
Defendant:
Trent Casinger, Timothy Bryan and Eufaula, City of
Plaintiff:
Ervin Ray Smith
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.
