Cases 1 - 10 of 17,656
Gutierrez v. Lumpkin-Director TDCJ-CID
as 4:2024cv01902
Petitioner:
Leonardo Gutierrez
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin-Director TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Jones v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 9:2024cv00093
Petitioner:
Hendrick Darnell Jones
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Palmer v. Lumpkin
as 24-20215
Petitioner:
Scott Edward Palmer
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Rodriguez v. Lumpkin
as 24-50392
Petitioner:
Jesus Rodriguez
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Mallett v. Lumpkin
as 24-10435
Petitioner:
Michael Robert Mallett
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Wiggins v. Lumpkin
as 24-10430
Petitioner:
Herbert Lavonne Wiggins
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Anderson v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 6:2024cv00034
Petitioner:
Travis Edward Anderson
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Butler v. Lumpkin
as 24-10419
Petitioner:
Marcus Quin Butler
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Mousavi v. Mayorkas et al
as 4:2024cv01775
Plaintiff:
Mr. Ali Mousavi
Defendant:
Director Alejandro N. Mayorkas, US ATTORNEY GENERAL MERRICK GARLAND, Mr. Randy Tate and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Crawford v. Lumpkin
as 24-50371
Petitioner:
Avery B. Crawford
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
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.
