Cases 1 - 10 of 180
Flores v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 3:2024cv01244
Petitioner:
Richard Louis Flores
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ-CID
Other:
Gregory M Fowler
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Flores v. USA
as 6:2024cv00029
Petitioner:
Romelia Flores
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Flores v. Lumpkin
as 5:2024cv00115
Petitioner:
Jose Luis Saveedra Flores
Respondent:
Director Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Medina v. Lumpkin
as 23-20565
Petitioner / Appellant:
Willie Medina, also known as Guillermo Flores Medina
Respondent / Appellee:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Santos-Flores v. United States of America
as 4:2023cv00598
Petitioner:
Hector Francisco Santos-Flores
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Henry v. Flores
as 6:2023cv00233
Petitioner:
Jody Ray Henry
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ and Rudy Flores
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Medina v. Lumpkin
as 4:2023cv00334
Petitioner:
Willie Medina and Guillermo Flores Medina
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Flores v Lumpkin
as 4:2023cv00006
Plaintiff:
Adrian Flores
Defendant:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hernandez v. Lumpkin
as 5:2022cv01244
Petitioner:
Jose Flores Hernandez
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Flores v. United States of America
as 6:2022cv00054
Petitioner:
Romelia Flores
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
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.
