Cases 21 - 30 of 33
Collins (ID 70273) v. Williams
as 5:2022cv03208
Petitioner:
Roger Allen Collins, Jr.
Respondent:
Tommy Williams
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Cardenas (ID 96000) v. Williams
as 5:2022cv03194
Petitioner:
Benito Cardenas, Jr.
Respondent:
Ness, City of, Kansas and Tommy Williams
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Erwin (ID 123078) v. Zmuda et al
as 5:2022cv03170
Plaintiff:
Christopher Adam Erwin
Defendant:
Jeff Zmuda, Libby Keogh, Darcie Holthous and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Cox (ID 98253) v. Zmuda
as 5:2022cv03154
Plaintiff:
Nicholas Cox
Defendant:
Jeff Zmuda, Jeff Butler and Tommy Williams
Interested Party:
Kansas Department of Corrections
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hill (83060) v. Williams
as 5:2022cv03108
Petitioner:
Nathaniel Hill
Respondent:
Kansas, State of and Tommy Williams
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Pierce (ID 58077) v. Williams
as 5:2022cv03104
Petitioner:
Christopher Pierce
Respondent:
Tommy Williams
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Reed (ID 72142) v. Williams
as 5:2022cv03029
Petitioner:
Noah Demetrius Reed
Respondent:
Kansas, State of and Tommy Williams
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 6:2020cv01257
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Speer (ID 96901) v. Beardsley et al
as 5:2020cv03075
Defendant:
(fnu) Barr, (fnu) Jiles, John Doe and others
Plaintiff:
Nicholas Speer
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Lynn (ID 64377) v. Hackney et al
as 5:2020cv03048
Defendant:
(fnu) Barr, Jordan Bell, (fnu) Jiles and others
Plaintiff:
Patrick C. Lynn
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
