Cases 121 - 130 of 5,411
Harper v. Stephens
as 1:2016cv00652
Notice Only Party:
Laura Haney
Petitioner:
Darrell J. Harper
Respondent:
William Stephens
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Garza v. Stephens
as 6:2016cv00479
Plaintiff:
Rosfel Garza
Defendant:
William Stephens
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
James v. Stephens-Director TDCJ-CID
as 5:2016cv00104
Petitioner:
Mozelle King James
Respondent:
William Stephens-Director TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Tubbs v. Director TDCJ-CID
as 7:2016cv00059
Petitioner:
Freddie Lee Tubbs
Respondent:
William Stephens and Lorie Davis-Director TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Jones v. Stephens
as 1:2016cv00619
Respondent:
Lorie Davis-Director TDCJ-CID and William Stephens
Notice Only Party:
Laura Haney
Petitioner:
Michael T. Jones
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Robinson v. Stephens et al
as 6:2016cv00456
Plaintiff:
Marshaun Lynn Robinson
Defendant:
William Stephens, Jeffery Richardson, Unknown Party and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Richard Eagans v. William Stephens, et al
as 16-20318
Plaintiff - Appellant:
RICHARD RAY EAGANS
Defendant - Appellee:
WILLIAM STEPHENS, TRACY BAILEY, TIFFANY BENSEN and others
Figgs v. Davis
as 1:2016cv00610
Respondent:
Lorie Davis-Director TDCJ-CID and William Stephens
Petitioner:
Cedric Charles Figgs
Notice Only Party:
Laura Haney
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Soto v. Stephens
as 1:2016cv00589
Respondent:
Lorie Davis-Director TDCJ-CID and William Stephens
Notice Only Party:
Laura Haney
Petitioner:
Victor Manuel Soto
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hawes v. Stephens
as 6:2016cv00442
Plaintiff:
Roger Hawes
Defendant:
William . Stephens, Brad Livingston and Pamela Pace
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.
