Cases 1 - 10 of 33
McCoy v. Scott et al
as 3:2024cv00712
Plaintiff:
James Mccoy
Defendant:
Unknown Jane Or John Does, Logansport City of, Indiana, Cody Scott and others
Unknown:
PUTNAMVILLE E-FILE (Court Use Only)
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv00411
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
McCoy v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 3:2024cv00985
Petitioner:
James McCoy
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
McCoy v. Womack
as 24-40261
Plaintiff:
James McCoy
Defendant:
Jacquelyn Womack, Senior Practice Manager/Med Complaint, V. Briones, Administrative Associate/Practice Manager and Tara Owens, Registered Nurse Mid-Level Provider
McCoy v. Lumpkin
as 24-40185
Petitioner:
James McCoy
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
McCoy v. Saunders
as 1:2024cv00104
Plaintiff:
James McCoy
Defendant:
M.D. Frank Saunders
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
McCoy v. Saunders
as 1:2024cv00105
Plaintiff:
James McCoy
Defendant:
M.D. Frank Saunders
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
McCoy v. Huffman et al
as 1:2024cv00072
Plaintiff:
James McCoy
Defendant:
Brand Huffman, Unknown Zennar and Unknown Cuttingham
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
McCoy v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 1:2024cv00056
Petitioner:
James McCoy
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
McCoy v. Huffman
as 1:2023cv00180
Plaintiff:
James McCoy
Defendant:
Brand Huffman
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
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.
