Cases 11 - 20 of 379
Price v. Goldey
as 5:2023cv01064
Petitioner:
Lee Earnest Price, III
Respondent:
Kris Goldey
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Martin v. Department of Corrections et al
as 5:2023cv00912
Plaintiff:
Anthony Lee Martin
Defendant:
Department of Corrections, Steven Harpe, Mark Knutson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Glidewell v. Stitt et al
as 5:2023cv00863
Plaintiff:
Dennis Lee Glidewell
Defendant:
Kevin Stitt, Larry Morris, Adam Luck and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Woodard v. State of Oklahoma et al
as 6:2023cv00327
Plaintiff:
Joseph Lee Woodward and Joseph Lee Woodard
Defendant:
State of Oklahoma and Leflore County District Attorneys Office
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Adams v. LNU et al
as 5:2023cv00833
Plaintiff:
Patrick Lee Adams
Defendant:
FNU LNU and Turnkey Health Clinic LLC
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Teague v. Stephens County Detention Center et al
as 5:2023cv00769
Plaintiff:
Christopher Lee Teague
Defendant:
Stephens County Detention Center, Javier Martinez and FNU Dale
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Kelley v. Stitt et al
as 5:2023cv00747
Plaintiff:
Phillip Lee Kelley, George Isbill, Rocky Ward and others
Defendant:
Kevin Stitt, Larry Morris, Adam Luck and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Melson v. Rankins
as 4:2023cv00338
Petitioner:
Brian Lee Melson
Respondent:
William Rankins
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Melson v. Rankins
as 4:2023cv00336
Petitioner:
Brian Lee Melson
Respondent:
William Rankins
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Melson v. Rankins
as 4:2023cv00339
Petitioner:
Brian Lee Melson
Respondent:
William Rankins
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
