Cases 1 - 10 of 3,312
Salinas v. Lumpkin
as 4:2024cv01917
Petitioner:
John Thomas Salinas
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Palmer v. Lumpkin
as 24-20215
Petitioner:
Scott Edward Palmer
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Rodriguez v. Lumpkin
as 24-50392
Petitioner:
Jesus Rodriguez
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Hughes v. Lumpkin
as 4:2024cv01897
Petitioner:
Darren Tramell Hughes
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Gutierrez v. Lumpkin-Director TDCJ-CID
as 4:2024cv01902
Petitioner:
Leonardo Gutierrez
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin-Director TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Alvarez v. Lumpkin et al
as 1:2024cv00180
Plaintiff:
Edwing Ahmed Alvarez
Defendant:
Bobby Lumpkin, Timothy Fitzpatrick, Christopher L Norsworthy and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Alvarez v. Lumpkin et al
as 1:2024cv00181
Plaintiff:
Edwing Ahmed Alvarez
Defendant:
Bobby Lumpkin, Timothy Fitzpatrick, Angela N Chevalier and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Mallett v. Lumpkin
as 24-10435
Petitioner:
Michael Robert Mallett
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Polk v. Lumpkin
as 9:2024cv00092
Petitioner:
Mavis Ray Polk
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Kindred v. Texas Parole Board et al
as 6:2024cv00259
Plaintiff:
Herman Lee Kindred
Defendant:
Texas Parole Board, Temple, Texas Parole Office, Field Officers and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
