Cases 91 - 100 of 102,881
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2024cv00499
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Bello v. USA
as 4:2024cv00482
Plaintiff:
Olamide Olatayo Bello
Defendant:
USA
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1383 Review of HHS Decision
Elizondo v. Lumpkin
as 7:2024cv00134
Petitioner:
Jaime Elizondo
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Coleman, Jr. v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 9:2024cv00065
Petitioner:
Edward James Coleman, Jr.
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Bonner v. Lumpkin-Director TDCJ-CID
as 6:2024cv00286
Petitioner:
Alfred Bonner
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin-Director TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hancock v. Jackson
as 5:2024cv00582
Plaintiff:
Anthony Eugene Hancock
Defendant:
JH Jackson and VIA Bus Company
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Garrison v. John Does and Jane Does Byrd Unit
as 7:2024cv00075
Plaintiff:
Curtis Allen Garrison
Defendant:
John Does and Jane Does Byrd Unit
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Knighton v. Martinez et al
as 2:2024cv00118
Plaintiff:
Jared Knighton, Jared Louis Knighton, Zachary Jared Louis Knighton and others
Defendant:
T Martinez, NFN Llamas, E Abedinovic and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Duncan v. Potter County et al
as 5:2024cv00125
Plaintiff:
James Daniel Duncan
Defendant:
Potter County, Randall County and Amarillo Potter County Police
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Garrison v. John Does and Janes Does, Coffield Unit
as 7:2024cv00073
Plaintiff:
Curtis Allen Garrison
Defendant:
John Does and Janes Does, Coffield Unit
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.
