Cases 1 - 10 of 296
Keys v. Wilkins
as 24-60218
Petitioner:
Joseph Benjamin Keys
Respondent:
James Wilkins, Warden, Mississippi Department of Corrections
Ainsworth v. Cain
as 24-60159
Petitioner:
Kenneth Ray Ainsworth
Respondent:
Burl Cain, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections
Bickham v. Day et al
as 1:2024cv00046
Plaintiff:
Tony D. Bickham
Defendant:
Mississippi Department of Correction Probation and Parole, Travis Day and Lynn Fitch
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Gray v. Mississippi Department of Corrections
as 3:2024cv00078
Plaintiff:
James Howard Gray
Defendant:
Mississippi Department of Corrections
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Brent v. Cain
as 24-60044
Petitioner:
James Lee Brent
Respondent:
Burl Cain, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections
Isby v. Cain
as 24-60003
Petitioner:
Anthony Isby
Respondent:
Burl Cain, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections
Williams v. Hooper
as 2:2024cv00011
Petitioner:
Charles Williams
Respondent:
State of Louisiana Department of Corrections and Attorney General State of Louisiana
Defendant:
Tim Hooper
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Pitchford v. Cain
as 23-60639
Petitioner:
Terry Pitchford
Respondent:
Burl Cain, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections
Carbin v. Cain
as 23-60618
Petitioner / Appellant:
Christopher Carbin
Respondent / Appellee:
Burl Cain, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections, Tate County Board of Supervisors and George C. Carlson, Jr.
Morris v. Cain
as 23-60591
Petitioner / Appellant:
Christopher Morris, also known as Christopher Jermaine Morris
Respondent / Appellee:
Burl Cain, Commissioner of Mississippi Department of Corrections
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.
