Cases 1 - 10 of 70
Smith v. Wagner
as 2:2024cv01083
Respondent:
Jeffrey A Wagner
Petitioner:
Tyrone Davis Smith
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Smith v. Johnson et al
as 2:2024cv00988
Petitioner:
Tyrone Davis Smith
Respondent:
Steven Johnson and Jeremy Gloudemans
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Smith v. Johnson
as 2:2024cv00180
Petitioner:
Tyrone Davis Smith
Respondent:
Steven Johnson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Davis v. Janske
as 6:2023cv06139
Plaintiff:
Tyrone Davis
Defendant:
Clay Janske
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Rodriguez, Jr. v. Texas Department of Correctional Justice
as 9:2018cv00176
Defendant:
Steven Edwards, Michael Davis, Donald Patrick and others
Plaintiff:
Frank W Rodriguez, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Lateef v. Medical Department et al
as 2:2022cv00093
Plaintiff:
Kareem A Lateef, Jr, Kareem Ali Lateef, Jr and Roderick Tyrone Davis
Defendant:
Medical Department, Safe Prisons Department, Office of Inspector General and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Smith, Tyrone v. Carr, Kevin et al
as 3:2021cv00656
Plaintiff:
Tyrone Davis Smith
Defendant:
Kevin A. Carr and Daniel Winkleski
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Davis v. Carr et al
as 1:2021cv02799
Plaintiff:
Zekemian Tyrone Davis
Defendant:
Michael Carr, Andy Pascuals, Daniel M. Coursey, Jr. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Barnes, Garland et al v. Carr, Kevin et al
as 3:2021cv00051
Defendant:
Roslyn A. Huneke, Kevin A. Carr and Daniel Winkleski
Plaintiff:
Garland Dean Barnes and Tyrone Davis Smith
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Davis v. Lombardo
as 2:2020cv01755
Respondent:
Joe Lombardo
Petitioner:
Raymond Tyrone Davis
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
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.
