Cases 1 - 10 of 75
MULLIS v. PRETORIOUS
as 2:2024cv00315
Petitioner:
BRETT DEWAYNE MULLIS
Respondent:
TRICIA PRETORIOUS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
MULLIS v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
as 2:2024cv00223
Plaintiff:
BRENT MULLIS
Defendant:
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, CHRISTINA REAGLE, TRICIA PRETORIUS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
MULLIS v. PRETORIUS
as 2:2024cv00127
Petitioner:
BRENT DEWAYNE MULLIS
Respondent:
T. PRETORIUS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Michael Greene v. Kevin Mullis
as 24-6095
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL LEE GREENE
Defendant:
KEVIN R. MULLIS, formerly Chief of Police of the Town of Lilesville, as the Chief of Police of the Lilesville Police Department at the times relevant to the matters complained of herein; and, TOWN OF LILESVILLE, NC, an incorporated municipality within the State of North Carolina and KEVIN R. MULLIS, in his Individual Capacity
Mullis v. Shepherd
as 8:2023cv02245
Plaintiff:
William Tony Mullis, Jr.
Defendant:
Deputy Shepherd
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Mullis v. Penzone et al
as 2:2023cv01806
Plaintiff:
Darby Mullis
Defendant:
Paul Penzone and Clint Hickman
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
MULLIS v. LANE
as 1:2023cv01516
Petitioner:
BRENT DEWAYNE MULLIS
Respondent:
CHRIS LANE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv01062
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Brent Mullis v. Chris Lane
as 23-1946
Petitioner / Appellant:
BRENT D. MULLIS
Respondent / Appellee:
CHRIS LANE, Sheriff, Bartholomew County, Indiana
MULLIS v. ROKITA
as 1:2023cv00761
Petitioner:
BRENT DEWAYNE MULLIS
Respondent:
THEODORE ROKITA
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.
