Cases 81 - 90 of 398
Jones v. Warden et al
as 3:2022cv01306
Plaintiff:
Kevin Jones
Defendant:
Warden, NFN Wonders, NFN Coleman and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
El Bey v. Paxton, Jr. al
as 2:2022cv00107
Plaintiff:
Hasseh El Bey
Defendant:
Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr, Christopher Lee Lindsey, Texas Office of the Attorney General and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Nelson v. Paxton
as 5:2022cv00055
Plaintiff:
Quincy Nelson
Defendant:
Ken Paxton
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Kemp v. Paxton
as 4:2022cv01045
Plaintiff:
John Edward Kemp
Defendant:
TX Attorney General Ken Paxton
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Stafford v. Zwicke et al
as 5:2022cv00314
Plaintiff:
Tyrone Stafford
Defendant:
Arnold S. Zwicke, Magistrate Judges, County/District Attorney and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Stone v. Abbott et al
as 3:2022cv00683
Plaintiff:
Alfred Lee Stone
Defendant:
Greg Abbott and Ken Paxton
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Peters v. Paxton et al
as 4:2022cv00760
Plaintiff:
Michael G. Peters
Defendant:
Ken Paxton, Gregg Abbott and Rick Perry
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Reaves v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 3:2022cv00536
Petitioner:
Samuel Reaves
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ-CID, David Gutierrez, Ken Paxton and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Peters et al v. Texas Child Support Office et al
as 4:2022cv00766
Plaintiff:
Michael G. Peters and Dalton G Peters
Defendant:
Texas Child Support Office, Ken Paxton and State of Texas
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Burkeen v. Paxton
as 4:2022cv00727
Plaintiff:
Dell Everette Burkeen, II
Defendant:
Ken Paxton
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
