Cases 1 - 10 of 1,096
Karlester Young v. Kip Hallman, et al
as 24-1920
Plaintiff:
KARLESTER YOUNG
Defendant:
KIP HALLMAN, President of Wellpath Holdings, PAUL NOEL, Chief Medical Director, ANTHONY LITIZIO and others
Otis v. Lumpkin
as 24-40297
Petitioner:
Kerron L. Otis
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Carr v. Arbanal et al
as 2:2024cv02081
Plaintiff:
Otis Carr
Defendant:
. Arbanal, . Wilham, Douglas County Illinois and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hosley v. Jansen
as 1:2024cv01621
Petitioner:
Otis Hosley
Respondent:
Warden Jansen
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Greer v. Lumpkin
as 24-50186
Petitioner:
Otis Greer
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Bonds v. Pike County, Mississippi et al
as 5:2024cv00023
Plaintiff:
Otis Bonds
Defendant:
Pike County, Mississippi and Warden Herbert Young
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Parker v. Jones
as 1:2024cv00702
Petitioner:
Otis Parker
Respondent:
Mr. Jones
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Parker v. State of Georgia
as 1:2024cv00665
Petitioner:
Otis Parker
Respondent:
State of Georgia
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hallman v. Smith et al
as 1:2024cv00015
Plaintiff:
DERRICK HALLMAN
Defendant:
WARDEN OTIS SMITH, JONES and SABRINA PORTER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Carter v. Riverside Regional Jail Authority et al
as 3:2024cv00056
Plaintiff:
Otis A. Carter
Defendant:
Riverside Regional Jail Authority, Lieutenant Colonel Dennis Holmes and Sergeant Devin L Holland
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
