Cases 101 - 110 of 228
Clay v. Director of TDCJ-CID
as 9:2009cv00197
Petitioner:
Paden Amaru Clay
Respondent:
Director of TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
v. Massingill et al
as 9:2009cv00189
Petitioner:
Jackie Naith Massingill, Jr.
Respondent:
Director of TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Poth v. Director of TDCJ-CID
as 9:2009cv00188
Petitioner:
Craig Alan Poth
Respondent:
Director of TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Newby v. Director of TDCJ-CID
as 9:2009cv00184
Petitioner:
James Arthur Newby
Respondent:
Director of TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Roberts v. Director of TDCJ-CID
as 9:2009cv00159
Petitioner:
Ronnie Roberts
Respondent:
Director of TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Edwards v. Director of TDCJ-CID
as 2:2009cv00253
Petitioner:
Mervin Edwards
Respondent:
Director of TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Garrett v. Quarterman
as 9:2009cv00136
Petitioner:
DeCarlos Montray Garrett
Respondent:
Director of TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Shaw v. Director of TDCJ-CID
as 9:2009cv00134
Petitioner:
Desiree Ann Weaver Shaw
Respondent:
Director of TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Webster v. Director of TDCJ-CID
as 9:2009cv00119
Petitioner:
Michael Alan Webster
Respondent:
Director of TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
v. Director of TDCJ-CID
as 9:2009cv00106
Petitioner:
La Canyd Hill
Respondent:
Director of TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 s 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.
