Cases 31 - 40 of 2,112
Vallejo Recio v. Lumpkin
as 1:2024cv00042
Petitioner:
Daniel Vallejo Recio
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Zirus v. O'Daniel et al
as 1:2024cv00507
Plaintiff:
Scott Zirus
Defendant:
Patrick O'Daniel, Bryan Collier and Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Singleton v. Lumpkin
as 3:2024cv00087
Petitioner:
Durrell Singleton
Defendant:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Clark v. Lumpkin
as 1:2024cv00118
Petitioner:
Herbert Charles Clark
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Taylor v. Lumpkin
as 4:2024cv01754
Petitioner:
Robert Cor'Darius Taylor
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Mathews v. Lumpkin
as 4:2024cv01755
Petitioner:
Mike Naoyuki Mathews
Respondent:
TDCJ, Director Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hughes v. Lumpkin
as 5:2024cv00479
Petitioner:
Darren Tramell Hughes
Respondent:
Director of TDCJ Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Tate v. Lumpkin
as 4:2024cv01749
Petitioner:
Marquis Valantee Tate
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Lester v. DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID
as 4:2024cv00413
Petitioner:
Timmy Heath Lester
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Garcia v. Lumpkin; Do not docket in 2:24-cv-110. Case is consolidated under 2:24-cv-108.
as 2:2024cv00110
Petitioner:
Antoino Andres Garcia
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
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.
