Cases 41 - 50 of 75
MILLER v. ZATECKY
as 1:2013cv00464
Petitioner:
DARNELL C. MILLER, SR.
Respondent:
DUSHAN ZATECKY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
GUILLEN v. BROWN
as 2:2013cv00094
Respondent:
BROWN
Petitioner:
OSCAR GUILLEN, SR.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
HERROD v. SUPERINTENDANT
as 1:2012cv01404
Petitioner:
JEROME HERROD, Sr.
Respondent:
SUPERINTENDANT
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
MEDARIS v. BUTTS
as 1:2012cv01051
Respondent:
KETH BUTTS
Petitioner:
KEITH L. MEDARIS, Sr.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
TWITTY v. BUTTS
as 1:2012cv00985
Respondent:
KEITH BUTTS
Petitioner:
TERRY R. TWITTY, Sr.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
BECK v. BROWN
as 2:2012cv00178
Petitioner:
RICHARD BECK, SR.
Respondent:
SUPERINTENDENT BROWN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
ROBBINS v. SUPERINTENDENT, WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
as 1:2011cv01013
Petitioner:
DONALD ROBBINS, SR.
Respondent:
SUPERINTENDENT, WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
HUGHES v. ATTORNEY GENERAL GREG ZOELLER et al
as 1:2011cv00351
Stricken As A Co-respondent Per Order Of 3/22/11:
ATTORNEY GENERAL GREG ZOELLER
Respondent:
DEPUTY SUPT. CRAIG A. HANKS SR.
Petitioner:
MARK S. HUGHES
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
FUQUAY, SR v. PETERS
as 3:2011cv00016
Plaintiff:
DANIEL R. FUQUAY, SR
Defendant:
GILBERT PETERS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
POWELL v. FINNAN
as 1:2011cv00054
Respondent:
SUPERINTENDENT ALAN FINNAN
Petitioner:
MYRON A. POWELL, SR.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
