Cases 1 - 10 of 16
Aguilar v. The State of Texas
as 4:2024cv00071
Petitioner:
Raymond Alexander Aguilar, Jr.
Respondent:
The State of Texas and Bill Waybourn
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Raymond Ford, Jr. v. Ralph Northam
as 23-6410
Plaintiff / Appellant:
RAYMOND ALEXANDER FORD, JR.
Defendant / Appellee:
RALPH NORTHAM, Governor of Virginia (Former), GLENN YOUNGKIN, Governor of Virginia (Present), HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections (VDOC) and others
Ray v. Norwood et al
as 6:2022cv00196
Plaintiff:
Raymond Alexander Ray
Defendant:
Joe Norwood, Julia Dorman, Airnesto Martinez and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Ray v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections
as 5:2021cv00694
Petitioner:
Raymond Alexander Ray
Respondent:
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Ray v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections
as 5:2020cv00078
Petitioner:
Raymond Alexander Ray
Respondent:
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Ray v. Wyoming Attorney General
as 1:2018cv00018
Petitioner:
Raymond Alexander Ray
Respondent:
Wyoming Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Ray v. Christensen
as 1:2018cv00006
Plaintiff:
Raymond Alexander Ray
Defendant:
Natrona County Circuit Court Judge
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ray v. Taylor et al
as 5:2017cv01374
Plaintiff:
Raymond Alexander Ray
Defendant:
PD Taylor and Jack Herron
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ray v. Taylor et al
as 5:2017cv00772
Plaintiff:
Raymond Alexander Ray
Defendant:
PD Taylor, Jack Herron and Oklahoma County Detention Center
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Raymond Ford, Jr. v. Jerry Mile
as 15-6627
Plaintiff - Appellant:
RAYMOND ALEXANDER FORD, JR.
Defendant - Appellee:
JERRY A. MILES, DDS, DR. HAYES, Dentist, C. BAILEY and others
Defendant:
MR. TURNER, LPN
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.
