Cases 1 - 10 of 89
Toy v. Jones et al
as 4:2024cv00026
Plaintiff:
Willie Lee Toy, Sr.
Defendant:
Tameka Jones, Abraham Gates, Humphreys County Sheriff Department and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Strong v. Wiles
as 3:2023cv00415
Petitioner:
Willie Lee Strong
Respondent:
Sheriff of El Paso Richard Wiles and Richard Wiles
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Strong v. Wiles
as 5:2023cv01395
Petitioner:
Willie Lee Strong
Respondent:
Sheriff of El Paso Richard Wiles
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 23-10880
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant / Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Pittman v. Federal Bureau of Prison
as 1:2023cv00440
Plaintiff:
Willie Lee Pittman
Defendant:
Federal Bureau of Prison
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Brady v. Lumpkin
as 23-50126
Petitioner / Appellant:
Willie Lee Brady, Jr.
Respondent / Appellee:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Rochelle v. Caddo Correctional Center
as 5:2022cv06185
Plaintiff:
Willie Lee Rochelle, IV
Defendant:
Caddo Correctional Center
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Rochelle v. Fertal
as 5:2022cv05958
Plaintiff:
Willie Lee Rochelle, IV
Defendant:
Kaylee Fertal
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Rochelle v. Fertal et al
as 5:2022cv02298
Plaintiff:
Willie Lee Rochelle, IV
Defendant:
Kaylee Fertal, Brian Riley, Steve Prator and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
James v. United States of America
as 3:2022cv00064
Plaintiff:
Willie Lee James
Defendant:
United States of America
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
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.
