Cases 1 - 10 of 15
Brown v. Harrison
as 3:2023cv00607
Plaintiff:
Ellis Brown
Defendant:
Warden C. Harrison
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Ellis v. Huffman
as 3:2023cv00059
Plaintiff:
Thomas Earl Ellis
Defendant:
Brand Huffman
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Ellis v. Huffman
as 3:2023cv00042
Plaintiff:
Thomas Earl Ellis
Defendant:
Brand Huffman
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Rawls v. Walls et al
as 3:2020cv00014
Defendant:
Cyathia Griffin, A. Green, Lavonne Walls and others
Plaintiff:
Stanley Ellis Rawls
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Ellis v. State of Mississippi
as 3:2018cv00850
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Respondent:
State of Mississippi and Superintendent Ron King
Petitioner:
Bryn Ellis
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Ellis v. Byrd et al
as 3:2018cv00285
Plaintiff:
Thomas Earl Ellis
Defendant:
Raymond Byrd
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Ellis v. Turner et al
as 4:2015cv00061
Petitioner:
Yvon Ellis
Respondent:
Cornelius Turner and Attorney General of the State of Mississippi
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Ellis v. Byrd
as 3:2015cv00121
Plaintiff:
Thomas Earl Ellis
Defendant:
Raymond Byrd
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Ellis v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
as 3:2014cv00592
Petitioner:
Troy Vancurtis Ellis
Respondent:
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Ellis v. Mississippi Department of Corrections et al
as 3:2013cv00157
Petitioner:
Sandra K. Ellis
Respondent:
Mississippi Department of Corrections , De Soto County, Miss. and Attorney General of the State of Mississippi
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
