Cases 71 - 80 of 6,338
Coker v. Stitt et al
as 5:2024cv00147
Plaintiff:
David Wayne Coker
Defendant:
Kevin Stitt, Kameron Harvanek, Matthew Sinnett and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Brooks v. Lilly et al
as 5:2024cv00122
Plaintiff:
Clarence Brooks
Defendant:
Amanda Lilly and Oklahoma State of
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Winfrey v. Louthan
as 5:2024cv00310
Petitioner:
Ted James Winfrey
Respondent:
David Louthan
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Kellogg v. Aguilera et al
as 5:2024cv00135
Plaintiff:
Timothy James Kellogg
Defendant:
Tony Aguilera, Jace Gilley, Cole Jack and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Kliewer v. Garfield County Detention Center et al
as 5:2024cv00124
Plaintiff:
Matthew Kliewer
Defendant:
Garfield County Detention Center, Corey Rink and Daylyn Rivers
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hartley v. Tubbs et al
as 5:2024cv00153
Plaintiff:
Christopher Hartley
Defendant:
Cheyenne Tubbs, Scott Burgess, Ian Druce and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Brodeur v. US Government
as 5:2024cv00306
Petitioner:
Christopher Xavier Brodeur
Respondent:
US Government
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Beck v. LNU et al
as 5:2024cv00296
Petitioner:
Patrick Beck
Respondent:
FNU LNU, US Marshals and Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Johnson v. Bridges
as 5:2024cv00297
Petitioner:
Joe Wayne Johnson
Respondent:
Carrie Bridges
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hooks v. United States of America
as 5:2024cv00299
Petitioner:
Elzie Wayne Hooks, III
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
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.
