Cases 1 - 8 of 8
Rios v. Lubbock County Sheriff's Office, et al
as 5:2023cv00137
Petitioner:
John Gabriel Rios
Respondent:
Lubbock County Sheriff's Office, Lynn County Sheriff's Office, Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Searcy v. Paxton et al
as 3:2021cv00113
Plaintiff:
Lisa Marie Searcy
Defendant:
Ralph Willis, Joseph McDevett, Amber Spurlock and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Searcy v. Darring et al
as 3:2021cv00117
Defendant:
Jaime Rawlinson, Tammy Cisernos, Galveston County Sheriff Department and others
Plaintiff:
Lisa Marie Searcy
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Searcy v. State Bar of Texas Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel et al
as 3:2021cv00114
Defendant:
Warren Paxton, Tammy Cisernos, Ralph Willis and others
Plaintiff:
Lisa Marie Searcy
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Searcy v. Office of Attorney General - Child Support Division et al
as 3:2021cv00116
Plaintiff:
Lisa Marie Searcy
Defendant:
Texas Department of Family and Interactive Services, Ralph Willis, Casa and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Rios v. Lynn County Sheriff's Office et al
as 5:2021cv00058
Defendant:
Garza County Sheriff's Office, The State of Texas, 106th District Court, Lynn County Sheriff's Office and others
Plaintiff:
John Gabriel Rios
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Kenneth Mouton v. State of Louisiana, et al
as 13-30092
Plaintiff - Appellant:
KENNETH J. MOUTON
Defendant - Appellee:
STATE OF LOUISIANA, PETER QUESTAVERD JOHN, Attorney #25725 O'Neal Legal, L.L.C., LOUISIANA DISCIPLINARY BOARD and others
Goodson v. State Bar of Texas Chief Disciplinary Counsel an CAAP Director Beenie Ramirez Respondents
as 3:2011cv00037
Plaintiff:
Steven Goodson
Defendant:
State Bar of Texas Chief Disciplinary Counsel an CAAP Director Beenie Ramirez Respondents
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.
