Cases 1 - 10 of 185
Frederick Banks v. The BOP Paralegal Specialists & DSCC et al
as 2:2020cv11817
Respondent:
Leeann D Tufte, Alicia Sankey, The BOP Paralegal Specialists & DSCC and others
Petitioner:
Frederick Banks
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Fleming v. White
as 1:2019cv00850
Defendant:
E. Y. Edkin, Daniel Porter, Amber Glenter and others
Plaintiff:
Byron Fleming
Respondent:
Warden Jermaine White
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Lawler v. Obenland
as 3:2017cv05824
Petitioner:
Greycloud Lawler
Respondent:
Michael Obenland
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Shaun Lawler v. Lorie Davis, Director
as 17-40892
Petitioner - Appellant:
SHAUN MARK LAWLER
Respondent - Appellee:
LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION
Devorce v. Falcone et al
as 3:2016cv00641
Petitioner:
Charles Bruce Devorce
Respondent:
Henry Falcone, Christopher Stoppa, Patrick A Cosgrove and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Lawler v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 6:2014cv00651
Petitioner:
Shaun Mark Lawler
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
JACKSON v. LAWLER et al
as 2:2014cv00401
Petitioner:
DEWAYNE JACKSON
Respondent:
RAYMOND M. LAWLER and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Lawler v. Stephens, Director TDCJ-CID
as 2:2013cv00109
Petitioner:
Darrell Leon Lawler
Respondent:
William Stephens, Director TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Daniel Encarnacion-Rivera v. Raymond Lawler, et al
as 13-2132
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DANIEL ENCARNACION-RIVERA
Defendant - Appellee:
RAYMOND M. LAWLER and ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA
Edward Coss, Jr. v. Lawler, et al
as 12-3651
Plaintiff - Appellant:
EDWARD R. COSS, JR.
Defendant - Appellee:
LAWLER, Supt., SCI HUNTINGDON, DISTRICT ATTORNEY LACKAWANNA COUNTY and others
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.
