Cases 1 - 10 of 50
Williams v. Hooper
as 2:2024cv00011
Petitioner:
Charles Williams
Respondent:
State of Louisiana Department of Corrections and Attorney General State of Louisiana
Defendant:
Tim Hooper
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Peters v. Sheriff Dept Employees et al
as 7:2023cv00073
Plaintiff:
Marc Arron Peters
Defendant:
Sheriff Dept Employees, FNU Williams, FNU Holliday and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Landrum v. Landry
as 23-30160
Petitioner / Appellant:
Charles William Landrum
Respondent / Appellee:
Jeff Landry, Attorney General for the State of Louisiana
DeForest v. Lumpkin
as 4:2022cv02984
Petitioner:
Charles William DeForest
Respondent:
Bobbie Lumpkin and Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Tidball v. Bobby Lumpkin, TDCJ-Dir.
as 5:2021cv01169
Petitioner:
Charles William Tidball, IV
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin-Director TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
DeForest v. University Of Texas Medical Branch
as 4:2020cv02711
Plaintiff:
Charles William DeForest
Defendant:
University Of Texas Medical Branch
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Landrum v. Landry
as 3:2019cv00668
Petitioner:
Charles William Landrum
Respondent:
Jeff Landry
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Williams v. Management and Training Corp. et al
as 5:2019cv00087
Defendant:
Warden F. Shaw, Deputy Warden T. Jackson, Case Manager T. Arbuthnot and others
Plaintiff:
Randy Charles Williams
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Motton v. Bureau of Prisons et al
as 1:2017cv00453
Defendant:
Bureau of Prisons, Rivera, Maze and others
Plaintiff:
Charles William Motton, III
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Heavner v. Harmon
as 3:2017cv00217
Petitioner:
Charles William Heavner, Jr
Respondent:
D J Harmon
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
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.
