Cases 1 - 10 of 17
Johnson v. Sperry et al
as 1:2018cv00044
Plaintiff:
La'Ron B Johnson
Defendant:
Steven A Sperry, Monte A Griffin, Robert Almanza, Jr and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Robert McClure v. Bryan Collier, Exct Dir, et al
as 18-10307
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ROBERT TROY MCCLURE
Defendant - Appellee:
BRYAN COLLIER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, LARRY DOYLE, Senior Warden, Texas Department of Criminal Justice Robertson Unit and others
Thomas v. Fagan et al
as 1:2017cv00154
Plaintiff:
Henry Thomas
Defendant:
Joshua Fagan, Adam Gonzales, Adrian Correll and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
McClure v. Collier et al
as 1:2017cv00149
Plaintiff:
Robert Troy McClure
Defendant:
Bryan Collier, Lorie Davis-Director TDCJ-CID, Larry Doyle and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cobos v. Davis-Director TDCJ-CID, et al
as 1:2017cv00106
Plaintiff:
Christopher Cobos
Defendant:
Lorie Davis-Director TDCJ-CID, Larry Doyle, FNU Mata and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Kay v. Davis-Director TDCJ-CID et al
as 1:2017cv00104
Petitioner:
Charles R Kay
Respondent:
Lorie Davis-Director TDCJ-CID and Larry Doyle
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Peralta v. Doyle
as 1:2017cv00040
Petitioner:
Isai Rodriguez Peralta
Respondent:
Larry Doyle
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Peralta v. Doyle
as 3:2017cv00826
Petitioner:
Isai Rodriguez Peralta
Respondent:
Larry Doyle
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Cochran v. Doyle
as 1:2017cv00002
Petitioner:
Mitchell Dean Cochran
Respondent:
Larry Doyle
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Chambers v. Doyle, Sr., Warden et al
as 3:2016cv00022
Plaintiff:
Michael P. Chambers
Defendant:
Larry Doyle, Sr., Warden, Sobin Anabraba, CO II, Daniele Akwaowoh, CO III and others
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.
