Cases 41 - 50 of 415
Jorge Alejandro Pulido Colmenero v. James Robertson
as 5:2022cv01215
Petitioner:
Jorge Alejandro Pulido Colmenero
Respondent:
James Robertson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hollingshead v. Robertson
as 2:2022cv01081
Petitioner:
Scott Hollingshead
Respondent:
Jim Robertson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Taniela Fonoifua v. Jim Robertson
as 2:2022cv04280
Petitioner:
Taniela Fonoifua
Respondent:
Jim Robertson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Raymond Macias v. James Robertson, et al
as 22-55592
Petitioner / Appellant:
RAYMOND DANIEL MACIAS
Respondent / Appellee:
JAMES ROBERTSON, Warden
Respondent:
DARRYL ADAMS
Robertson v. Hooper et al
as 3:2022cv00389
Petitioner:
Douglas Robertson
Respondent:
Timothy Hooper and Jeff Landry
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Quiles v. Robertson
as 3:2022cv03495
Petitioner:
Brendon Quiles
Defendant:
James Robertson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hollingshead v. Robertson
as 4:2022cv03150
Petitioner:
Scott Hollingshead
Respondent:
Jim Robertson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Robertson Sr. v. TDCJ-CID
as 6:2022cv00022
Petitioner:
Tom Elton Robertson Sr.
Respondent:
Aaron Tomkins, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divisions (TDCJ-CID) and Bobby Lumpkin-Director TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Cisneros v. Robertson
as 4:2022cv02961
Plaintiff:
Miguel A. Cisneros
Defendant:
Jim Robertson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Miguel Cisneros v. Jim Robertson
as 22-15730
Petitioner / Appellant:
MIGUEL A. CISNEROS
Respondent / Appellee:
JIM ROBERTSON
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.