Cases 1 - 10 of 502
Valdes Cruz v. Humphrey
as 5:2024cv01029
Defendant:
Warden C. Humphrey
Petitioner:
Silvio Valdes Cruz
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Middleton v. USA
as 2:2024cv00089
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
Andrea C. Middleton
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
McNeal v. McHenry et al
as 1:2024cv00942
Defendant:
S. C. McHenry and FNU Stacy
Plaintiff:
Cedric McNeal
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Relerford v. Lumpkin-Director TDCJ-CID
as 6:2024cv00411
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin-Director TDCJ-CID
Petitioner:
Lynn C. Relerford
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Cardenas v. Salazar et al
as 5:2024cv00879
Defendant:
University Health System, Captain Finley, Sheriff Javier Salazar and others
Plaintiff:
Ernest Cardenas
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2024cv00246
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Blake v. Rosalez et al
as 5:2024cv00798
Defendant:
P. A. C. Pokluda, Health Service Admin L. Burns, Nurse X. Zhang and others
Plaintiff:
Robert Timothy Blake
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00747
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
Jones v. Sgt. Diaz et al
as 5:2024cv00722
Defendant:
Sgt. Diaz, c/o Passanger of Van John Doe #2 and c/o Driver of Van John Doe #1
Plaintiff:
Danny Jones
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Henry v. Perez et al
as 6:2024cv00316
Plaintiff:
Roman J. Henry
Defendant:
Sergio Perez, Bryan Collier, C. Washington and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
