Cases 21 - 30 of 119
Olivarez v. Rowe
as 5:2022cv00240
Petitioner:
Jai Olivarez
Defendant:
Lubbock County Courthouse, Lubbock County Detention Center and Sheriff Kelly Rowe
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Brooks v. Kelly Rowe
as 5:2022cv00221
Plaintiff:
Darene Brooks
Defendant:
FNU 5:22-CV-221 Fair and Sergio Ordonez
Respondent:
Lubbock County Detention Center and Kelly Rowe
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Wilson v. Rowe
as 5:2022cv00194
Petitioner:
Edward J Wilson
Respondent:
Sheriff Kelly Rowe
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Jackson v. Strong
as 3:2022cv01391
Petitioner:
Jecole DeKeith Jackson
Respondent:
Kelly Strong
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Woodson v. Rowe
as 5:2022cv00117
Petitioner:
Marcus D Woodson
Respondent:
Sheriff Kelly Rowe
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Kelly v. Yezak
as 6:2022cv00614
Petitioner:
Mike Anthony Kelly
Respondent:
Sheriff Gerald Yezak
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Dingler v. Rockwall County Court #2 et al
as 3:2022cv01252
Petitioner:
Joseph Kelly Dingler
Respondent:
Rockwall County Court #2 and Travis County Court #5
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Woodson v. Rowe
as 5:2022cv00088
Petitioner:
Marcus D Woodson
Respondent:
Kelly Rowe
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Kelly v. TDCJ-CID Director
as 5:2022cv00078
Petitioner:
Jacob James Kelly
Respondent:
TDCJ-CID Director
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Martinez v. Strong
as 3:2022cv00673
Petitioner:
Gregory Lewis Martinez
Respondent:
Kelly Strong
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.
