Cases 11 - 20 of 27
Roberson v. Hutchison et al
as 1:2019cv00750
Defendant:
Sandra Parker, Wanda Isbell, FNU Tangy and others
Plaintiff:
Michael Cardora Roberson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Harris Lovell v. Darrel Vannoy, Warden
as 18-30820
Petitioner - Appellant:
HARRIS RICHARD LOVELL
Respondent - Appellee:
DARREL VANNOY, WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY
Lovell v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 9:2018cv00117
Petitioner:
Marshall Shane Lovell
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Lovell v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 1:2018cv00269
Petitioner:
Marshall Shane Lovell
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Lewis et al v. Texas Department Of Criminal Justice et al
as 4:2018cv00311
Plaintiff:
Corneilus Deshun Lewis , Fredrick Bernard Lewis and Janice Marie Close
Defendant:
Texas Department Of Criminal Justice, University Of Texas Medical Branch, Yolanda Smith and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Lovell v. Vannoy et al
as 2:2017cv05836
Plaintiff:
Harris Richard Lovell
Defendant:
Darrel Vannoy
Respondent:
Attorney General State of Louisiana
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Mitchell v. Smith et al
as 4:2016cv00614
Plaintiff:
Wendell R Mitchell
Defendant:
Cornelious Smith, Brad Livingston, Matt Gross and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
George Lovell, Jr. v. USA, et al
as 16-40339
Plaintiff - Appellant:
GEORGE T. LOVELL, JR.
Defendant - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GEO CORRECTIONS & DETENTION and RIO GRANDE DETENTION CENTER
Lovell v. Rio Grande Detention Center et al
as 5:2016cv00030
Petitioner:
George T Lovell, Jr
Defendant:
Rio Grande Detention Center and U.S. Marshals Service
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Wilson v. Temple
as 3:2016cv00052
Defendant:
Cassandra Temple
Plaintiff:
Lovelle Wilson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
