Cases 1 - 10 of 30
James v. Nanos et al
as 4:2024cv00030
Petitioner:
John Edwards James, III
Respondent:
Christopher Nanos and Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
James v. Arias et al
as 7:2022cv00054
Plaintiff:
John P. James
Defendant:
David A. Arias and Robert W. Hughes, III
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
James v. Lumpkin
as 22-50321
Petitioner / Appellant:
John Patrick James
Respondent / Appellee:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Griffith v. Crain et al
as 6:2022cv06033
Plaintiff:
Christopher Dean Griffith
Defendant:
Gregory Crain, Sgt. Susan Turner, Peyton T Murphy and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Griffith v. Crain et al
as 4:2022cv00156
Plaintiff:
Christopher Dean Griffith
Defendant:
Gregory Crain, Susan Turner, Peyton T Murphy and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
James v. Lumpkin et al
as 5:2021cv01079
Petitioner:
John Patrick James
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
James III v. Nanos et al
as 4:2021cv00341
Petitioner:
John Edwards James and John Edwards James, III
Respondent:
Christopher Nanos and Tucson Police Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
James v. Nanos et al
as 4:2021cv00305
Plaintiff:
John Edward James, III
Defendant:
Christopher Nanos, Unknown Party, Unknown Adale and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
John Steven James v. Cois Byrd Detention Center
as 5:2020cv00440
Plaintiff:
John Steven James
Defendant:
Cois Byrd Detention Center
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
John Steven James v. Kathaleen Pedro et al
as 5:2020cv00420
Defendant:
Garland Peed, Probation Officer Helen Fanning and Kathaleen Pedro
Plaintiff:
John Steven James
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
