Cases 31 - 40 of 329
Aaron Maurice Blaylock v. United States of America
as 1:2023cv01011
Petitioner:
Aaron Maurice Blaylock
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Leach v. State of Arkansas
as 2:2022cv02191
Petitioner:
Dakota Leach
Respondent:
State of Arkansas
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Munn v. Hempstead County
as 4:2022cv04120
Plaintiff:
Willie Munn
Defendant:
Hempstead County
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Coakley v. Payne
as 4:2022cv04111
Petitioner:
LaJason J. Coakley
Respondent:
Dexter Payne
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Leach v. Crawford County Justice Center
as 2:2022cv02172
Petitioner:
Dakota Leach
Respondent:
Crawford County Justice Center
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jones v. Payne et al
as 6:2022cv06110
Petitioner:
Doyle Anthony Jones
Respondent:
Dexter Payne and Leslie Rutledge
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Willingham v. Payne
as 6:2022cv06106
Petitioner:
Oscar Willingham
Respondent:
Dexter Payne
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Simms v. Maricopa County Jail - Phoenix AZ et al
as 2:2022cv02117
Plaintiff:
Franklin S. Simms
Defendant:
Maricopa County Jail - Phoenix AZ and Alhambra State of Arizona Processing Prison
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Smith v. United States of America
as 6:2022cv06078
Petitioner:
Henry Smith
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Hooks v. Yates
as 6:2022cv06056
Petitioner:
Casey A. Hooks
Respondent:
Warden John Yates
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
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.
