Cases 41 - 50 of 109
Singletary v. Lumpkin-Director TDCJ-CID
as 4:2020cv03446
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin-Director TDCJ-CID, Dr. Theresa May, Ken Paxton and others
Petitioner:
Charleston Singletary
In Re:
Australia Jones
Defendant:
State of Texas
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Crotts v. Middleton
as 4:2020cv03126
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin, Juli Mathew, Ken Paxton and others
Petitioner:
Alan Nelson Crotts
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Bell v. Paxton
as 4:2020cv03093
Plaintiff:
John M Bell
Defendant:
Ken Paxton
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Bay Area Unitarian Universalist Church et al v. Paxton et al
as 4:2020cv03081
Defendant:
Chief of Houston PD Art Acevedo, County Attorney Vince Ryan, Presiding Officer Kim Lemaux and others
Plaintiff:
Drink Houston Better, LLC d/b/a Antidote Coffee, Bay Area Unitarian Universalist Church, Perk You Later, LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Obudulu v. Davis
as 3:2020cv00198
Petitioner:
Ikechukwu C Obudulu
Respondent:
Ken Paxton, Caroline Rickaway and Jeffery Morrison
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Coffield v. Abbott et al
as 3:2020cv00151
Defendant:
Dir of TDCJ-Parole Bryan Collier, Dale Wainwright, Warden Bridgette Hayes and others
Plaintiff:
Anthony Norman Coffield
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Brooks v. Paxton et al
as 4:2020cv01355
Defendant:
Sheila Jackson Lee, Judge Ernie Unknown, Greg Abbott and others
Plaintiff:
Gregory Wade Brooks, II
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Harvey v. Paxton
as 4:2020cv01090
Defendant:
Attorney General Ken Paxton
Plaintiff:
Zachariah Harvey
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Goodie v. Paxton et al
as 4:2020cv00789
Plaintiff:
Dwight Goodie
Defendant:
Jessica McClelon and Ken Paxton
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Odom v. Smith
as 4:2020cv00139
Respondent:
Ken Paxton and Sheriff Royce Glenn Smith
Petitioner:
Dennis Lee Odom
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651
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.
