Cases 171 - 180 of 481
Robinson v. Stephens
as 6:2015cv00289
Notice Only Party:
Laura Haney
Petitioner:
Rasheen Jamal Robinson
Respondent:
William Stephens
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Larry Langs v. William Stephens, Director, et al
as 15-20578
Plaintiff - Appellant:
LARRY DON LANGS
Defendant - Appellee:
WILLIAM STEPHENS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, TRACY BAILY, Head Warden, PHIPPS DEMETRIE and others
Roberts v. Stephens et al
as 4:2015cv02911
Plaintiff:
Charlie James Roberts, Jr.
Defendant:
William Stephens, Robert D. Herrera, Dale R. White and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Justice v. Stephens et al
as 4:2015cv02845
Plaintiff:
Ricky Barnard Justice
Defendant:
William Stephens, Warden Harris, Co McKinney and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Shelby v. Stephens et al
as 9:2015cv00141
Plaintiff:
Mitchell Wash Shelby
Respondent:
William Stephens, Brad Livingston, John Doe and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Eggleston v. William et al
as 4:2015cv02863
Plaintiff:
Thomas Eggleston, III
Defendant:
William Stephens and Ressie Owens
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Morgan v. Stephens et al
as 4:2015cv02833
Plaintiff:
Steve Alan Morgan
Defendant:
William Stephens, Troy D Simpson and Koklia Naik
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Parrott Jr. v. Livingston et al
as 6:2015cv00866
Plaintiff:
Jimmie Mark Parrott Jr.
Defendant:
Brad Livingston, William Stephens, Eddie Baker and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Osby v. Stephans et al
as 4:2015cv02801
Plaintiff:
Lord Harlech Osby
Defendant:
William Stephens, Tracy Bailey, Chris LaCox and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Perez v. Stephens et al
as 2:2015cv00409
Plaintiff:
Ulysses A Perez
Defendant:
William Stephens, Darren S Mayer, Temple Ramming and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
