Cases 41 - 50 of 1,788
Tubbs-Chandler v. Gallion et al
as 2:2024cv00004
Plaintiff:
Dashawn Tubbs-Chandler
Defendant:
Butch Gallion, Autumn Armstrong, Sharon Smith and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Johnson v. Chapin, et al
as 24-1010
Plaintiff:
JABARI J. JOHNSON
Defendant:
DAVID CHAPIN, JESSICA AGGSON, FNU STEIN, Lt. and others
PRYOR v. DOOLY STATE PRISON et al
as 5:2023cv00475
Plaintiff:
ERIK E PRYOR
Defendant:
DOOLY STATE PRISON, ARMSTRONG and ALTMA
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Kelly v. Stephens County Jail et al
as 5:2023cv01094
Plaintiff:
Jacob Kelly
Defendant:
Stephens County Jail, Heather LNU, Sean LNU and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Armstrong #314416 v. Ramos et al
as 2:2023cv02401
Plaintiff:
Kpou Armstrong
Defendant:
Alfred Ramos, Fransisco Hernandez and Mia Baldenegro
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
ROBERTS v. WEBB et al
as 3:2023cv24696
Plaintiff:
JAVONEY DEVON ROBERTS
Defendant:
JAMES R WEBB, C SIMMONS and T ARMSTRONG
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hughes v. Lawson et al
as 2:2023cv00175
Plaintiff:
Martin E. Hughes
Defendant:
Ronnie Lawson, Butch Gallion, Autumn Armstrong and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Moses v. Lumpkin
as 23-50751
Petitioner / Appellant:
DeAngelo Donte Moses
Respondent / Appellee:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Bruce Armstrong and Jerry Sanchez
Ullom v. Armstrong
as 2:2023cv00473
Petitioner:
Terry Glen Ullom
Respondent:
Glen Armstrong and Warden Glen Armstrong
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Williams v. Riverside Regional Jail Authority et al
as 3:2023cv00666
Plaintiff:
Jeffery Williams
Defendant:
Riverside Regional Jail Authority, Larry Leabough, Dennis Holmes and others
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.
