Cases 1 - 10 of 148
Odom v. Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC
as 5:2024cv00405
Plaintiff:
Henry Odom
Defendant:
Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)
Odom v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., et al.
as 5:2024cv00114
Plaintiff:
Terry L. Odom
Defendant:
Bp Exploration & Production, Inc. and BP America Production Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury
Rios v. Meyer et al
as 5:2023cv00302
Plaintiff:
John Gabriel Rios
Defendant:
Brent Meyer, Wanda Mason, Derek Hester and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Rios v. Walters et al
as 5:2023cv00286
Plaintiff:
John Gabriel Rios
Defendant:
Darren Walters, Katrina White, Derek Hester and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Odom v. 188th County Court et al.
as 6:2023cv00580
Petitioner:
James Odom
Defendant:
188th County Court, Kim Sung and Judge Scott Novy
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Rios v. Mason et al
as 5:2023cv00270
Plaintiff:
John Gabriel Rios
Defendant:
Wanda Mason, Derek Hester, Rebecca McKibben and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Rios v. Archer County Sheriff's Office
as 7:2023cv00108
Plaintiff:
John Gabriel Rios
Defendant:
Archer County Sheriff's Office, Jack Curd, Justin Perron and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Odom v. Lumpkin
as 5:2023cv01195
Petitioner:
Kyle Mitchell Odom
Respondent:
Director of TDCJ Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Canales v. Warren
as 6:2023cv00456
Plaintiff:
Jeffrey Canales
Defendant:
Officer FNU Warren, Judge Scott Novy, John W. Moore, II and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Odom v. Sung
as 6:2023cv00237
Plaintiff:
James Odom
Defendant:
Kim Sung
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.
