Cases 61 - 70 of 1,511
Nesbitt v. Mims
as 4:2023cv00181
Petitioner:
Derrick Nesbitt
Respondent:
Charles Mims
Not Classified By Court:
Attorney General State of Georgia (Notice Only)
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Smith v. May et al
as 1:2023cv00696
Petitioner:
Derrick Smith
Respondent:
Robert May and Kathleen Jennings
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Davenport v. Judge
as 5:2023hc02136
Petitioner:
Derrick L. Davenport
Respondent:
Warden C. Judge
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Davenport v. Judge
as 1:2023cv00159
Petitioner:
Derrick L. Davenport
Respondent:
C. Judge
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Derrick Deon Horton v. Riverside County
as 5:2023cv00984
Petitioner:
Derrick Deon Horton
Respondent:
Riverside County
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
BARNES v. HOUSER et al
as 2:2023cv02080
Petitioner:
DERRICK BARNES
Respondent:
SUPERINTENDENT HOUSER and SCI-BENNER TOWNSHIP
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hood v. Sheriff
as 1:2023cv00208
Petitioner:
Derrick L Hood
Respondent:
Sheriff
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Eutsey v. Davis et al (INMATE 3)
as 2:2023cv00317
Plaintiff:
Jimmy Derrick Eutsey
Defendant:
Gwendolyn Davis and Steven T. Marshall
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Derrick Alvin Givens v. Bryan Birkholz
as 2:2023cv03596
Petitioner:
Derrick Alvin Givens
Respondent:
Bryan Birkholz
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Smith, Jr. v. Brown
as 5:2023cv00177
Petitioner:
Derrick A. Smith, Jr.
Respondent:
Warden R. Brown
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
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.
