Cases 131 - 140 of 4,555
Martinez v. Farris
as 23-6001
Petitioner / Appellant:
MICA ALEXANDER MARTINEZ
Respondent / Appellee:
JIM FARRIS, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary
Pruitt v. Mays
as 2:2022cv02855
Petitioner:
Corinio Pruitt
Respondent:
Tony Mays
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
US v. James Roane, Jr.
as 23-1
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
JAMES H. ROANE, JR., a/k/a J.R.
Thomas James Moore v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al
as 22-14207
Petitioner / Appellant:
THOMAS JAMES MOORE
Respondent / Appellee:
SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA
DOE TEST v. SCI PHOENIX et al
as 2:2023cv99991
Petitioner:
JANE DOE TEST
Respondent:
SCI PHOENIX and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PA TEST
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 dp Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (DEATH PENALTY)
Sorto v. Lumpkin
as 22-70013
Petitioner / Appellant:
Walter Alexander Sorto
Respondent / Appellee:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Truehill v. Department of Corrections
as 3:2022cv01386
Plaintiff:
Quentin M Truehill
Defendant:
Department of Corrections
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Delacerda v. Lumpkin-Director TDCJ-CID
as 1:2022cv00557
Petitioner:
Jason Delacerda
Respondent:
Director Bobby Lumpkin-Director TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution
Thomas Springs v. Dexter Payne
as 22-3399
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Thomas Leo Springs
Defendant / Appellee:
Dexter Payne, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction
Eizember et al v. Harpe et al
as 5:2023cv00025
Plaintiff:
Scott Eizember and Jeffrey Hood
Defendant:
Steven Harpe, Jim Farris and Justin Farris
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
