Cases 1 - 10 of 21
Brooks v. Collier et al
as 4:2020cv01274
Plaintiff:
Sherman D. Brooks
Defendant:
Senior Warden Jones, Brian Collier and Janet Harry
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Paul Howe v. Officer John Doe #1, et al
as 17-41199
Plaintiff - Appellee:
PAUL K. HOWE
Defendant - Appellee:
OFFICER JOHN DOE #1, OFFICER JOHN DOE #2, OFFICER JOHN DOE #3 and others
Sanchez v. Davis et al
as 4:2017cv03335
Plaintiff:
Enriquez Ricardo Sanchez
Defendant:
Lorie Davis, Pittman, Ms. James and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Garcia v. Stephens
as 3:2017cv00253
Respondent:
Lorie Davis - Director of the TDCJ-Correctional Institutions Division and Warden Jones
Petitioner:
Julian Garcia
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Kaizer v. Sgt. Spivey et al
as 4:2017cv02358
Petitioner:
Randy J.J. Kaizer
Defendant:
Sgt. Spivey, Lt. Scott, Unit Major and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Evans v. USP Warden Jones
as 1:2017cv00276
Petitioner:
Rodrick Maurice Evans
Respondent:
USP Warden Jones
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Rivas v. USP Warden Jones
as 1:2017cv00269
Petitioner:
Guillermo Gonzales Rivas
Respondent:
USP Warden Jones
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Paul Howe v. Brad Livingston, Executive Dir, et al
as 16-40832
Plaintiff - Appellant:
PAUL K. HOWE
Defendant - Appellee:
BRAD LIVINGSTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, SENIOR WARDEN JONES, ASSISTANT WARDEN DAVID M. BLACKWELL and others
Randall Williams v. Jones, et al
as 16-20042
Plaintiff - Appellant:
RANDALL WILLIAMS
Defendant - Appellee:
WARDEN JONES, Warden, WARDEN SMITH, Assistant Warden, JAMIE WILLIAMS, Medical Practice Manager and others
Ronald Sutherland v. William Stephens, et al
as 15-20616
Plaintiff - Appellant:
RONALD DAVID SUTHERLAND
Defendant - Appellee:
WILLIAM STEPHENS, WARDEN SMITH, WARDEN CARTER and others
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.
