Cases 1 - 10 of 32
Davis #58392 v. Thornell et al
as 2:2023cv00494
Petitioner:
Morris Earl Davis
Respondent:
Ryan Thornell and Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
DeMocker v. Shinn et al
as 3:2022cv08203
Petitioner:
Steven Carroll DeMocker
Respondent:
David Shinn, Stephen Morris and Jeff Van Winkle
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Elem #086747 v. Ducey et al
as 4:2020cv00424
Respondent:
Unknown McCullan, Unknown Buchholz, Teresa Leonard and others
Petitioner:
Henry Elem, III
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Morris v. Shinn et al
as 4:2020cv00322
Respondent:
David Shinn and Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Petitioner:
Danny Ray Morris
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Gomez #342507 v. Morris et al
as 2:2020cv00823
Respondent:
Stephen Morris and Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Petitioner:
Jesus Alonso Gomez
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Clark #283330 v. Unknown Party
as 2:2020cv00591
Respondent:
Unknown Party, Arizona, State of and Steve Morris
Petitioner:
Kyle L Clark
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Riser #334924 v. Morris et al
as 2:2019cv05832
Respondent:
Attorney General of the State of Arizona and Stephen Morris
Petitioner:
Dedric Dwayne Riser
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Rodriguez #242516 v. Morris et al
as 2:2019cv04957
Petitioner:
Daniel Alexander Rodriguez
Respondent:
Attorney General of the State of Arizona and Stephen Morris
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Morris v. Kelliher et al
as 4:2019cv00245
Respondent:
Arizona, State of and John F Kelliher, Jr.
Petitioner:
Danny Ray Morris
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Rodriguez #242516 v. Morris et al
as 2:2019cv02092
Petitioner:
Daniel Alexander Rodriguez
Respondent:
Attorney General of the State of Arizona and Stephen Morris
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.
