Cases 1 - 10 of 3,426
Black v. Ciciotti et al
as 2:2024cv11501
Petitioner:
Yvonne Louise Black
Respondent:
Brandon Ciciotti, Matthew J. McGivney, Michael P. Hatty and others
MILLER v. PELESKY et al
as 3:2024cv00129
Petitioner:
MATTHEW R. MILLER
Respondent:
PELESKY and DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF SOMERSET COUNTY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Gentry v. Schneider
as 1:2024cv00541
Petitioner:
Matthew Gentry
Respondent:
A. Schneider
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Cleckler v. McClain et al (INMATE 3)
as 2:2024cv00334
Plaintiff:
Joshua Matthew Cleckler
Defendant:
Antonio McClain and Steven T. Marshall
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
DAVIS v. STATE OF MAINE
as 1:2024cv00205
Petitioner:
MATTHEW DAVIS
Respondent:
STATE OF MAINE
Not Yet Classified:
MAINE ATTORNEY GENERAL - HABEAS CASES
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Reza v. United States of America - FBOP et al
as 3:2024cv00066
Petitioner:
Matthew Reza
Respondent:
United States of America - FBOP and Warden Brown
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Zapata v. Divris
as 24-1521
Petitioner:
CARLOS RAMON ZAPATA
Respondent:
MATTHEW DIVRIS, Superintendent
Flowers v. Lumpkin
as 24-10486
Petitioner:
Matthew Lee Flowers
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
GARRISON v. HAWKINS et al
as 2:2024cv02832
Petitioner:
Carlos Q Garrison
Respondent:
DANIEL HAWKINS, MICHAEL RUCKER, MATTHEW J. THOMPSON and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Escalante v. Droege
as 5:2024cv03079
Petitioner:
Matthew Aaron Escalante
Respondent:
Charles Droege
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.
