Cases 51 - 60 of 66,631
Hays v. Hooper
as 3:2024cv00579
Plaintiff:
Cameron Hays
Defendant:
Tim Hooper
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Ashlock v. Coke County Sheriff
as 5:2024cv00112
Petitioner:
Calvin Ashlock
Respondent:
Coke County Sheriff
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Saucedo v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 2:2024cv00090
Petitioner:
Bobby Saucedo
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Nunez v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 9:2024cv00086
Petitioner:
Albino Nunez
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Green v. Huffman
as 1:2024cv00127
Plaintiff:
Kelvin Green
Defendant:
Brand Huffman
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Chappell v. Haley
as 1:2024cv00128
Plaintiff:
Grady Eugene Chappell
Defendant:
Matt Haley
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Sellers v. Scott County Detention Center
as 3:2024cv00245
Plaintiff:
Zachary Wade Sellers
Defendant:
Scott County Detention Center
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Laurel v. Warden S. Hijar
as 3:2024cv00153
Petitioner:
Daniel Laurel
Respondent:
Warden S. Hijar
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Dorado v. United States of America
as 3:2024cv00154
Petitioner:
Carlos Dorado
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Leal v. Lumpkin
as 24-10391
Petitioner:
Nathaniel Leal
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
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.
