Cases 1 - 10 of 44
Dalton v. Lumpkin-Director TDCJ-CID
as 1:2023cv01105
Petitioner:
Gregory James Dalton
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin-Director TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Smith v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 4:2021cv00661
Petitioner:
James Dalton Smith
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Dalton v. State of Tennessee et al
as 2:2020cv00022
Respondent:
Fentress County and State of Tennessee
Petitioner:
Jeremy James Dalton
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Bell v. United States Parole Commission et al
as 5:2016cv03568
Petitioner:
James Dalton Bell
Respondent:
United States Parole Commission, U.S. Attorney General, Federal Bureau of Prisons and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Bell v. Thomas
as 1:2011cv00243
Petitioner:
James Dalton Bell
Respondent:
Warden Thomas
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Bell v. US Courts et al
as 2:2010cv00604
Petitioner:
James Dalton Bell
Respondent:
US Courts, Federal Bureau of Prisons and All Agents of US Courts
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Bell v. United States of America
as 3:2010cv05175
Petitioner:
James Dalton Bell
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Bell v. Apker et al
as 4:2009cv00216
Petitioner:
James Dalton Bell
Respondent:
Apker, USP Tucson and U.S. District Court
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
BELL v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION et al
as 1:2008cv00633
Petitioner:
JAMES DALTON BELL
Respondent:
UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL and FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
Bell v. USA et al
as 4:2008cv00244
Petitioner:
James Dalton Bell
Respondent:
USA, Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons and others
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
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.
