Cases 71 - 80 of 3,973
WILLIAMS v. RULE
as 2:2024cv00006
Petitioner:
CHRISTOPHER L. WILLIAMS
Respondent:
T. RULE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
SILVA v. WARDEN
as 2:2023cv00586
Petitioner:
CURTIS SILVA
Respondent:
WARDEN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
DIAZ v. VANIHEL et al
as 2:2023cv00584
Petitioner:
ROLANDO DIAZ
Respondent:
FRANK VANIHEL, ENGLISH, WADHAN and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
FLYNN v. WARDEN
as 2:2023cv00581
Petitioner:
DEANDRE' FLYNN
Respondent:
WARDEN and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIANA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
PIRANT v. STATE OF INDIANA
as 1:2023cv02290
Petitioner:
JAMIL M. PIRANT
Respondent:
STATE OF INDIANA
Defendant:
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
CHAMBERS v. MONROE COUNTY CT. et al
as 1:2023cv02281
Petitioner:
MICHAEL S. CHAMBERS
Respondent:
MONROE COUNTY CT., JUDGE (TERESA HARPER), ATT. (STUART BAGGERLY) and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
BANKHEAD v. ERNEST et al
as 1:2023cv02268
Plaintiff:
ACTORA MECONN BANKHEAD
Defendant:
J. ERNEST, J. JACKSON and BROWN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
STITTS v. WALLEN et al
as 1:2023cv02253
Plaintiff:
TURAMA STITTS
Defendant:
WALLEN and PENDLETON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
MCGINNIS v. MANNING et al
as 1:2023cv02242
Plaintiff:
ZACHARY J. MCGINNIS
Defendant:
MANNING, MCCAFFERTY, BALL and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
BROADWAY v. RULE
as 2:2023cv00571
Petitioner:
MARCUS BROADWAY
Respondent:
T. RULE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
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.
