Cases 41 - 50 of 120
Gatiss #620798 v. Woods et al
as 2:2015cv00099
Respondent:
Chippewa Correctional Facility, Jeffrey Woods and Michigan Department of Corrections
Petitioner:
Donald James Gatiss #620798
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Hill #201978 v. Michigan Department of Corrections et al
as 1:2015cv00714
Petitioner:
Ashondo Karice Hill #201978
Respondent:
Daniel Heyns and Michigan Department of Corrections
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Hill v. Heynes et al
as 2:2015cv12375
Petitioner:
Ashondo Hill
Respondent:
Daniel Heynes and Michigan Department of Corrections
Gideon et al v. Wainwright et al
as 5:2015cv11454
Petitioner:
Sue Gideon, Timmy P. Monaco, Amber Lambert and others
Respondent:
Clarence Earl Wainwright, Michigan Department of Corrections and Michigan, State of
Shaq et al v. Kobe et al
as 4:2015cv10630
Petitioner:
Michelle Shaq, Jimmy Theola, Georgette Thornton and others
Respondent:
James Kobe, Michigan Department of Corrections and Michigan, State of
Smith v. Michigan Department of Corrections Hearings Division
as 4:2014cv14790
Petitioner:
Derrick Lee Smith
Respondent:
Michigan Department of Corrections Hearings Division
Baker #116698 v. Michigan Department of Corrections
as 2:2013cv00294
Petitioner:
Andrew Burton Baker #116698
Respondent:
Michigan Department of Corrections
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Akrawi v. Michigan Parole Board et al
as 2:2012cv13977
Petitioner:
Louis Akrawi
Respondent:
Michigan Parole Board and Michigan Department of Corrections
Fox v. Michigan Department of Corrections et al
as 2:2012cv00222
Petitioner:
Ronald L. Fox
Respondent:
Michigan Department of Corrections and Michigan Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Smith #261933 v. Michigan Department of Corrections Parole Board et al
as 1:2012cv00515
Petitioner:
Nathaniel Smith #261933
Respondent:
Michigan Department of Corrections Parole Board and Willie Smith
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
