Cases 91 - 100 of 2,105
Garcia v. Lumpkin
as 5:2024cv00259
Petitioner:
Antonio Andres Garcia
Respondent:
Director of TDCJ Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Edwards v. Lumpkin DO NOT DOCKET IN 4:24cv903. CASE IS CONSOLIDATED UNDER 4:24cv899.
as 4:2024cv00903
Petitioner:
Robert C. Edwards
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Edwards v. Lumpkin DO NOT DOCKET IN 4:24cv904. CASE IS CONSOLIDATED UNDER 4:24cv899
as 4:2024cv00904
Petitioner:
Robert C. Edwards
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Edwards v. Lumpkin
as 4:2024cv00907
Petitioner:
Robert C. Edwards
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Edwards v. Lumpkin
as 4:2024cv00899
Petitioner:
Robert C. Edwards
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Edwards v. Lumpkin
as 4:2024cv00905
Petitioner:
Robert C. Edwards
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Edwards v. Lumpkin
as 4:2024cv00909
Petitioner:
Robert C. Edwards
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Conley v. Lumpkin
as 4:2024cv00850
Petitioner:
David Ray Conley, III
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Douglas v. Lumpkin
as 4:2024cv00855
Petitioner:
Roderick Bernard Douglas
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Richardson v. Lumpkin
as 5:2024cv00268
Petitioner:
Stephen Wayne Richardson
Respondent:
Director of TDCJ Bobby Lumpkin
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.
