Cases 21 - 30 of 23,818
Canales v. Rayford et al
as 5:2024cv00655
Plaintiff:
Ramiro Canales
Defendant:
Senior Warden Phonso J. Rayford, Correctional Officer Vanessa Valero, Correctional Officer Ruth Trice and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Thomas v. Collier et al
as 5:2024cv00658
Plaintiff:
Destry Earl Thomas
Defendant:
Director Bryan Collier, Senior Warden Adrian A. Amonett, Assistant Warden Candice Hannel and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2024cv02170
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petiti
Negron v. Lumpkin
as 24-50460
Petitioner:
Antonio J. Negron
Respondent:
State of Texas and Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Roberson v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 4:2024cv00532
Petitioner:
Rayford Glenn Roberson
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2024cv00161
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2024cv02132
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 08 U.S.C. § 1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petiti
Richards v. Schmoker
as 4:2024cv02137
Plaintiff:
James Richards
Defendant:
Wayne Schmoker and Executive Director of the Texas Civil Commitment Office
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2024cv00162
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 8 U.S.C. § 1446 Petition for Naturalization Hearing
Fisk v. Lumpkin
as 24-50452
Petitioner:
Walter Fisk
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
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.
