Cases 1 - 10 of 24
Desinor v. SECY, FLA. DEPT OF CORR., et al.
as 0:2022cv62442
Petitioner:
Ronel Desinor
Defendant:
SECY, FLA. DEPT OF CORR., et al.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Thomas v. Emmons
as 1:2022cv00055
Petitioner:
Raymond B. Thomas
Respondent:
The United States Supreme Court, et al. and Shawn Emmons
Not Classified By Court:
Attorney General State of Georgia (Notice Only)
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Thomas v. The United States Supreme Court, et al.
as 4:2022cv00106
Plaintiff:
Raymond B. Thomas
Defendant:
The United States Supreme Court, et al.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Edwards v. Georgia Dept. of Corrections et al
as 1:2022cv01374
Petitioner:
Randy Edwards
Respondent:
Georgia Dept. of Corrections, et al, Timothy Ward, State Board of Pardons and Paroles, et al and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jones v. State of Georgia, et al
as 1:2021cv01454
Respondent:
State of Georgia, et al
Petitioner:
Michelle Jones
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Dinkins v. USA, et al
as 1:2020cv01879
Petitioner:
Robert O. Dinkins
Respondent:
USA, et al
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Dinkins v. USA et al
as 1:2019cv02303
Petitioner:
Robert O. Dinkins
Respondent:
USA et al
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Davis v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al. et al
as 3:2018cv00857
Respondent:
Florida Attorney General and Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
Petitioner:
Jemar Derrel Davis
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Jeffrey Ector v. Ahmed Holt
as 17-12814
Petitioner - Appellant:
JEFFREY K. ECTOR
Respondent - Appellee:
AHMED HOLT, et al
Jeffrey Ector v. Ahmed Holt
as 16-13062
Petitioner - Appellant:
JEFFREY K. ECTOR
Respondent - Appellee:
AHMED HOLT, et al
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.
