Cases 21 - 30 of 3,628
Crawford v. Lumpkin
as 24-50371
Petitioner:
Avery B. Crawford
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00492
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2024cv01699
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2024cv00350
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petiti
Young v. Sam B. Hall Federal Building et al
as 2:2024cv00271
Plaintiff:
Travion Dondrell Young
Defendant:
Sam B. Hall Federal Building, Bradney Randall Smith, Cortne Maresse Robinson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Boyce v. B. Smith et al
as 4:2024cv01372
Plaintiff:
Clifford Boyce
Defendant:
B. Smith, T. Mitchell and A. Wasson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Robertson v. Jerald K. Graber et al
as 4:2024cv01374
Plaintiff:
Carl W. Robertson
Defendant:
Jerald K. Graber, Terry Gaiser and Hazel B. Jones
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Riggs, Sr. v. Lumpkin et al.
as 7:2024cv00099
Plaintiff:
James Tyrone Riggs, Sr
Defendant:
Director Bobby Lumpkin, Chairman David G. Gutierrez, Parole Boardmember Elodia Brito and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Caston v. Tucker
as 3:2024cv00208
Plaintiff:
Bernard B. Caston
Defendant:
Randy Tucker
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Deary v. Collier et al
as 7:2024cv00050
Plaintiff:
Reginald Deary
Defendant:
B. Collier, B. Reitsma, T. Vitolo and others
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.
