Cases 1 - 10 of 87
English v. The United States of America et al
as 4:2024cv01321
Petitioner:
James-Thomas English
Respondent:
The United States of America, Montgomery County Courthouse & the of Texas & U, U. Garcia and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Montgomery v. Lumpkin
as 3:2023cv00179
Petitioner:
Gregory Montgomery
Respondent:
T.D.C.J. Director and Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Montgomery v. Lumpkin
as 4:2023cv02342
Petitioner:
Gregory Montgomery
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Spikes v. 22nd District Attorney et al
as 2:2023cv01279
Plaintiff:
Jason J Spikes
Defendant:
22nd District Attorney, Warren Montgomery and Lewis Murry
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Montgomery v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 7:2023cv00022
Petitioner:
Toby Lawrence Montgomery
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Thomas v. Smith
as 22-60205
Petitioner / Appellant:
Forrest Thomas, III
Respondent / Appellee:
Brandon M. Smith, Warden, Carroll/Montgomery Regional Correctional Facility
Spikes v. Montgomery et al
as 2:2022cv00917
Plaintiff:
Jason J Spikes
Defendant:
Warren Montgomery and Matthew Caplan
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Spikes v. Lancaster
as 2:2022cv00741
Plaintiff:
Jason J Spikes and Jason Jarrell Hughes
Defendant:
Luke Lancaster
Consolidated Defendant:
Raymond Childress, Iain Dover, John Linder and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Montgomery v. Warden, FCC Bmt
as 1:2022cv00011
Petitioner:
Michael Chase Montgomery
Respondent:
Warden, FCC Bmt
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
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.
