Cases 11 - 20 of 40
Murphy-Richardson #333262 v. Unknown Party et al
as 2:2022cv00882
Petitioner:
Ismael Antonio Murphy-Richardson
Respondent:
Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections, Attorney General of the State of Arizona, Judicial Department of the United States and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2019cv05775
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2019cv05712
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2019cv05612
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2019cv05615
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2019cv05616
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2019cv05421
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361
Plunkett v. Attorney General of the State of Arizona
as 3:2019cv08299
Respondent:
Attorney General of the State of Arizona, Director of Department of Corrections and David Shinn
Petitioner:
Louis Hugh Plunkett, Jr and Louis Hugh Plunkett, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Ohman #189498 v. Arizona Department of Corrections et al
as 2:2018cv02148
Defendant:
Corizon Health Board of Directors, Charles L Ryan, Arizona Department of Corrections and others
Plaintiff:
Phillip M Ohman
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2016cv03767
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361
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.
