Cases 41 - 50 of 364
Ramos v. United States of America
as 5:2022cv00841
Plaintiff:
Raul Ramos
Defendant:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
Contreras v. Thomas et al
as 2:2022cv00143
Plaintiff:
Michael Contreras and Michael Paul Contreras
Defendant:
Brian Thomas, Brooks W Barfield, Douglas R Woodburn and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Ramos v. Lumpkin
as 4:2022cv02242
Petitioner:
Jose Ricardo Ramos
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Ramos v. Lumpkin
as 22-20318
Petitioner / Appellant:
Armando Ramos
Respondent / Appellee:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Stoneham v. DeLeon et al
as 5:2022cv00549
Plaintiff:
Frank Stoneham
Defendant:
Michael DeLeon, Velia Meza, District Attorney's Office and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Bryant v. Nelson
as 22-50313
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Kerwin Bryant
Defendant / Appellee:
C. Nelson, Detective, #2072, San Antonio Police Department, S. Johnson, Sergeant, #3145, San Antonio Police Department, R. Valadez, Detective, #2101, San Antonio Police Department Task Force and others
Ramos v. Lumpkin
as 5:2022cv00391
Petitioner:
Daniel Ramos
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Johnson v. Sanchez et al
as 2:2022cv00071
Plaintiff:
Jerome Johnson
Defendant:
Fabian Sanchez, Bryan Collier, Bobby Lumpkin and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
FILING ERROR
as 5:2022cv00380
Plaintiff:
Raul Ramos
Defendant:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
Erwin v. USA
as 22-40184
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Bonnie Burnette Erwin
Defendant / Appellee:
United States of America, Michael Horowitz, Jeff Baney and others
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.
