Cases 41 - 50 of 153,179
Garcia-Ruiz v. Garland
as 24-3217
Petitioner:
ALEX ADAN GARCIA-RUIZ
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Guerra-Torres v. Garland
as 24-3207
Petitioner:
VILMA YOLANDA GUERRA-TORRES
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Vega Lorente v. Garland
as 24-3215
Petitioner:
SABASTIAN ANTONIO VEGA LORENTE
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Rodriguez Rafael v. Garland
as 24-3206
Petitioner:
JOSE OSWVALDO RODRIGUEZ RAFAEL
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Sifuentes Matallana v. Garland
as 24-9536
Petitioner:
JULIO SIFUENTES MATALLANA
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General of the United States
Lindsey #333281 v. Thornell et al
as 2:2024cv01150
Petitioner:
Jason Christopher Lindsey, Jr.
Respondent:
Ryan Thornell and Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Dayton #355356 v. Thornell et al
as 4:2024cv00257
Petitioner:
Robert Guy Dayton, Jr.
Respondent:
Ryan Thornell, Staci Ibarra and Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Ortiz v. Adkins
as 2:2024cv02114
Petitioner:
Juan Ortiz
Respondent:
Felicia Adkins
Not Yet Classified:
Habeas Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Clements v. Rios et al
as 2:2024cv00486
Petitioner:
James Clements
Respondent:
Hector Rios and Attorney General for the State of New Mexico
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
ATKINS v. SUPERINTENDENT OF SCI SOMERSET et al
as 3:2024cv00105
Petitioner:
WILLIAM ROBERT ATKINS
Respondent:
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCI SOMERSET, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF LANCASTER COUNTY, PA
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.
