Cases 11 - 20 of 1,779
Robinson v. State of Tennessee
as 3:2024cv00159
Petitioner:
Nathaniel S Robinson
Respondent:
State of Tennessee
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Robinson v. Punturi
as 1:2024cv00550
Petitioner:
Adrian Robinson
Respondent:
Kevin Punturi
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Robinson v. Benzel
as 2:2024cv00413
Petitioner:
Tomaz S Robinson
Respondent:
Jason Benzel
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Pierce v. Robinson
as 4:2024cv00570
Petitioner:
James Eugene Pierce
Respondent:
Warden Norm Robinson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
ROBINSON v. WAHL et al
as 2:2024cv00963
Petitioner:
FARUQ ROBINSON
Respondent:
SUPERINTENDENT MARK WAHL, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Robinson v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Duval County)
as 3:2024cv00231
Petitioner:
Terrence Nicarr Robinson
Respondent:
Secretary, Department of Corrections
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Robinson #462832 v. Macauley et al
as 1:2024cv00210
Petitioner:
Isaiah Robinson #462832
Respondent:
Matt Macauley, William Zeerip, Heidi Washington and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Kirk Robinson v. Taggart Boyd, et al
as 24-1392
Petitioner:
Kirk D. Robinson
Respondent:
Taggart Boyd, Warden of RTC and Rob Jeffreys, Director of Corrections, Nebraska
Jackie Robinson v. Stephen Reynolds
as 24-3147
Petitioner:
JACKIE ROBINSON
Respondent:
WARDEN STEPHEN REYNOLDS
Terrence Robinson-Bey v. Kenneth Black
as 24-3099
Petitioner:
TERRENCE LEMAR ROBINSON-BEY
Respondent:
KENNETH BLACK, Warden
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.
