Cases 131 - 140 of 418,820
Daryl Hayden v. Superintendent Forest SCI, et al
as 24-2075
Plaintiff:
DARYL T. HAYDEN
Defendant:
SUPERINTENDENT FOREST SCI, ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA and DISTRICT ATTORNEY ALLEGHENY COUNTY
Draucker v. Lumpkin
as 24-10511
Petitioner:
James Draucker
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division and State of Texas, Rockwall County, Texas
Torres v. Lumpkin
as 24-20254
Petitioner:
Steven Cecillio Torres
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Cosby v. Banuelos, et al
as 24-1247
Petitioner:
GREGORY D. COSBY, AKA Gregory D. Crosby
Respondent:
M. BANUELOS, DHO Officer, A. CIOLLI, Warden, J. POTTER, Correctional Officer and others
Van v. Penzone
as 2:2024cv01399
Petitioner:
Derrick Julius Van
Respondent:
Paul Penzone
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Beal v. District Attorney Alameda
as 1:2024cv03470
Petitioner:
Charles Clifton Beal
Respondent:
District Attorney Alameda
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
YARBROUGH v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 2:2024cv00304
Petitioner:
ANTWAINE ENTA YARBROUGH
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
PARR v. STATE OF INDIANA
as 3:2024cv00099
Petitioner:
TOMMY W. PARR
Respondent:
STATE OF INDIANA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 st Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Galinis v. Calcasieu Correctional Center et al
as 2:2024cv01517
Plaintiff:
Kerry Brooks Galinis
Defendant:
Calcasieu Correctional Center and 29th Judicial District Court
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Squire v. New
as 2:2024cv04174
Petitioner:
Kashon Squire
Respondent:
Mr. Mickcorr Ramond New
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.
