Cases 1 - 10 of 55
Daniel O. Conahan, Jr. v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, et al
as 24-10844
Petitioner:
DANIEL O CONAHAN, JR.
Respondent:
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL
CRAVEN v. DIXON et al
as 4:2022cv00220
Petitioner:
Daniel Jacob Craven and DANIEL JACOB CRAVEN, JR
Respondent:
Secretary Ricky Dixon, Ashley Moody and RICKY DIXON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
CRAVEN v. DIXON et al
as 5:2022cv00122
Petitioner:
DANIEL JACOB CRAVEN, JR
Respondent:
RICKY DIXON and ASHLEY MOODY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution
LEE v. WARDEN USP TERRE HAUTE et al
as 2:2019cv00468
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and WARDEN USP TERRE HAUTE
Petitioner:
DANIEL LEWIS LEE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Daniel v. Davis
as 1:2017cv01069
Petitioner:
Brandon Daniel
Respondent:
Lorie Davis
Notice Only Party:
Death Penalty Noticing
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
FILING ERROR
as 1:2017cv01063
Petitioner:
Brandon Daniel
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
HALL v. DANIELS
as 2:2017cv00176
Respondent:
CHARLES DANIELS
Petitioner:
ORLANDO CORDIA HALL
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
HIGGS v. DANIELS
as 2:2016cv00321
Respondent:
CHARLES DANIELS
Petitioner:
DUSTIN JOHN HIGGS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Daniel Acker v. Lorie Davis, Director
as 16-70017
Petitioner - Appellant:
DANIEL CLATE ACKER
Respondent - Appellee:
LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION
ALLEN v. DANIELS
as 2:2016cv00257
Petitioner:
BILLIE JEROME ALLEN
Respondent:
CHARLES DANIELS
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.
