Cases 1 - 10 of 52
Glover Jr v. Eke et al
as 4:2023cv02647
Plaintiff:
Ernest Lee Glover Jr and Earnest Lee Glover, Jr.
Defendant:
Correctional Officer Eke and Correctional Officer Arenau
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Glover Jr v. Huntsville Narcotics Reg Commission et al
as 4:2022cv00772
Plaintiff:
Ernest Lee Glover Jr
Defendant:
Huntsville Narcotics Reg Commission, UTMB John Sealy Galveston and Mario Takasi
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Glover, Jr. v. Clerk Inmate Trust Fund Supervisor
as 4:2022cv00132
Plaintiff:
Ernest Lee Glover, Jr.
Defendant:
Clerk Inmate Trust Fund Supervisor
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
USA v. Ernest McCarty
as 17-50991
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
ERNEST LEE MCCARTY
Ernest Glover, Jr. v. Lorie Davis, Director
as 17-10803
Petitioner - Appellant:
ERNEST LEE GLOVER, JR., also known as Earnest Lee Glover, Jr.
Respondent - Appellee:
LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION
McCarty v. United States Of America
as 7:2016cv00112
Plaintiff:
Ernest Lee McCarty
Defendant:
United States Of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
Sharp v. Lee et al
as 1:2015cv00160
Petitioner:
Timothy R. Sharp
Respondent:
Ernest Lee and Attorney General of the State of Mississippi
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Glover v. Stephens-Director TDCJ-CID
as 2:2015cv00250
Petitioner:
Ernest Lee Glover, Jr
Respondent:
William Stephens-Director TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Powell v. Lee
as 3:2015cv00073
Petitioner:
Eric Troy Powell
Respondent:
Ernest Lee
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
James Holmes v. Ernest Lee
as 14-60680
Petitioner - Appellant:
JAMES L. HOLMES
Respondent - Appellee:
ERNEST LEE, Superintendent, Mississippi State Penitentiary
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.
