Cases 1 - 10 of 432
Anthony Grimes v. Tim Lane
as 24-5456
Petitioner:
ANTHONY THOMAS GRIMES
Respondent:
TIM LANE, Warden
Brown v. Lane
as 5:2024cv00285
Petitioner:
Curtis Tyrone Brown
Respondent:
Reece Lane
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Olivares Venegas v. McLean County Sheriff Office
as 1:2024cv01070
Petitioner:
Jonathan B Olivares Venegas
Respondent:
McLean County Sheriff Office and Matt Lane
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Lane v. Cantrell et al
as 4:2023cv00084
Petitioner:
Raven Lane
Respondent:
Richard Cantrell and Fort Peck Tribes
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Eisenmann v. Thornell et al
as 2:2023cv02285
Petitioner:
Gary Lane Eisenmann
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)
Hart v. Haynes
as 2:2023cv00311
Petitioner:
Edward Lane Hart
Respondent:
Ronald Haynes
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Lane v. Warden
as 3:2023cv00811
Petitioner:
Willie Lane
Respondent:
Warden
Not Classified By Court:
INDIANA STATE PRISON E-FILE (Court Use Only)
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
MULLIS v. LANE
as 1:2023cv01516
Petitioner:
BRENT DEWAYNE MULLIS
Respondent:
CHRIS LANE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Michael Lane v. Superintendent Mahanoy SCI, et al
as 23-2483
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MICHAEL LANE
Defendant / Appellee:
SUPERINTENDENT MAHANOY SCI, DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEHIGH COUNTY and ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA
Pyles v. Freshour et al
as 1:2023cv01281
Petitioner:
Terry L Pyles
Respondent:
Alex Freshour, Ryan Sterbing and Matt Lane
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
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.
