Cases 41 - 50 of 126
Jackson v. Texas Department Of Criminal Justice et al
as 4:2022cv00543
Plaintiff:
Matthew Jamal Jackson
Defendant:
Texas Department Of Criminal Justice, Dale Wainwright, Lorie Davis and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Perez v. Rayford et al
as 5:2022cv00279
Petitioner:
Charlie Perez
Respondent:
Phonso J. Rayford, Roger L. Boyd, Vernet A. Davis, Jr and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Ventress v. Rayford
as 1:2022cv00095
Plaintiff:
Chandler Kyle Ventress
Defendant:
Phonso Rayford
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Perry v. The State of Texas et al
as 4:2021cv01342
Petitioner:
Rayford F Perry
Defendant:
The State of Texas, The State of Oklahama and The State of California
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Ventress v. Abbott et al
as 5:2022cv00232
Plaintiff:
Chandler Kyle Ventress
Defendant:
Governor Greg Abbott, Warden Phonso Rayford and Director of TDCJ Bryan Collier
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Russell et al v. Lumpkin
as 5:2021cv01209
Petitioner:
John David Russell
Respondent:
Phonso J. Rayford and Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Mack v. Lumpkin et al
as 5:2021cv01184
Plaintiff:
Fletcher Kevin Mack
Defendant:
Bobby Lumpkin, John Werner, C.F. Hazelwood and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Gibbs v. Collier et al
as 5:2021cv01259
Plaintiff:
Marcello LaCraig Gibbs
Defendant:
Brian Collier, Phonso J. Rayford, John A. Marcum and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2021cv01035
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Hayes v. Rayford et al
as 5:2021cv01039
Plaintiff:
Abraham Bundu Hayes
Defendant:
Phonso Rayford and Jesus Avalos
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.
