Cases 21 - 30 of 174
Price v. Nail et al
as 5:2023cv00010
Plaintiff:
Quincy Price
Defendant:
Lonnie Nail and Kayla Sherman
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Sherman v. McEntee et al
as 5:2022cv05775
Plaintiff:
Michael S Sherman
Defendant:
Adam McEntee and Shreveport Police Dept
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Brooks v. Hernandez, et al.
as 1:2022cv00963
Plaintiff:
Sherman D. Brooks
Defendant:
Sally Hernandez, A. Wilson, A. Mansaray and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Wilkins v. Lumpkin et al
as 3:2022cv02037
Plaintiff:
Ralph Sherman Wilkins
Defendant:
Ben Woodard, John Best and Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Wilkins v. Lumpkin et al
as 6:2022cv00047
Plaintiff:
Ralph Sherman Wilkins
Defendant:
Ben Woodard, John Best and Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Wilkins v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 3:2022cv01784
Petitioner:
Ralph Sherman Wilkins
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Wilkins v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 6:2022cv00040
Petitioner:
Ralph Sherman Wilkins
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Oby v. John Doe
as 5:2022cv00054
Plaintiff:
Sherman Oby
Defendant:
John Doe, Captain J. Green, R. Logan and others
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Dunn v. Henshaw et al
as 5:2022cv00736
Plaintiff:
Travis Dunn
Defendant:
Danny Henshaw, Louisiana Dept of Public Safety & Corrections, David Wade Correctional Center and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Becks v. USA
as 4:2022cv00209
Petitioner:
George Sherman Becks
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate/Correct Illegal Sentence
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.
