Cases 1 - 10 of 645
Tyler v. Kelly
as 5:2024hc02097
Petitioner:
Branden Tyler
Respondent:
Lynne B. Kelly
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Montgomery v. Kelly
as 5:2024hc02091
Petitioner:
Louvertis Kayonne Montgomery
Respondent:
Warden Lynne B. Kelly
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Larry Blakney v. Merrick Garland
as 24-6377
Petitioner:
LARRY BLAKNEY
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General of U.S. and WARDEN THOMAS SCARANTINO
Moore v. State of South Carolina
as 4:2024cv01753
Petitioner:
Charles B. Moore, Jr.
Respondent:
State of South Carolina
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Crittendon v. Greenville County Sheriff's Department et al
as 4:2024cv00681
Petitioner:
Timothy B. Crittendon
Respondent:
Greenville County Sheriff's Department, Director Greenville County Detention Center, Greenville County Solicitor's Office and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Samuel Ford v. S. Lovett
as 23-7288
Petitioner:
SAMUEL B. FORD
Respondent:
STANLEY LOVETT, JR., Warden U.S.P. Hazelton
Frank Carr v. Lynn Kelly
as 23-7241
Petitioner / Appellant:
FRANK CARR
Respondent / Appellee:
LYNN B. KELLY, Warden
Joshua Jordan v. SC Corrections Office of Investigations
as 23-7211
Petitioner / Appellant:
JOSHUA BRYAN JORDAN
Respondent / Appellee:
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS AND INTELLIGENCE, MATTHEW B. WATSON and RICHARD M. DARLING
Williams v. Clarke
as 3:2023cv00780
Petitioner:
Gary B. Williams
Respondent:
Harold Clarke
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Najarred Walker v. Frank Bishop
as 23-7138
Petitioner / Appellant:
NAJARRED T. WALKER
Respondent / Appellee:
WARDEN FRANK B. BISHOP and MARYLAND ATTORNEY GENERAL
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.
