Cases 1 - 10 of 47
Jones v. Lumpkin
as 4:2024cv00804
Petitioner:
Matthew Thomas Jones
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jones v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 6:2024cv00070
Petitioner:
Matthew Thomas Jones
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Matthew Thomas Plascencia v. Joe T. Turnquist et al
as 8:2024cv00145
Plaintiff:
Matthew Thomas Plascencia
Defendant:
Joe T. Turnquist and J Quenzler
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Murphy v. State of Mississippi
as 1:2023cv00363
Plaintiff:
Matthew Thomas Murphy
Defendant:
John Doe and State of Mississippi
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Fox v. Galaprin et al
as 1:2023cv00168
Plaintiff:
Matthew Thomas Fox, Jr.
Defendant:
Galaprin, Warden and nursing staff
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Johnson v. Anupa et al
as 4:2023cv01078
Plaintiff:
Matthew Thomas Johnson
Defendant:
George Anupa and Bruce Chan
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Mangus v. Virginia Department of Corrections et al
as 7:2023cv00103
Plaintiff:
Matthew Thomas Mangus
Defendant:
Virginia Department of Corrections, Harold W. Clarke, Joseph Walters and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Matthew Harrison v. Raphael Washington
as 22-2106
Petitioner / Appellant:
MATTHEW THOMAS HARRISON
Respondent / Appellee:
RAPHAEL WASHINGTON
Harrison v. Worthy et al
as 2:2022cv12312
Plaintiff:
Matthew Thomas Harrison
Defendant:
Kym Worthy, Wayne County and Warren C. Evans
Houff v. United States of America
as 4:2022cv04070
Plaintiff:
Matthew Thomas Houff
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
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.
