Cases 31 - 40 of 3,265
Briones v. Lumpkin
as 24-10348
Petitioner:
Jose Nieves Briones
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
McBride v. Lumpkin
as 6:2024cv00198
Petitioner:
Thomas Richie McBride
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin-Director TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Lewis v. Lumpkin
as 24-50115
Petitioner:
Billy Wayne Lewis
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Jones v. Lumpkin
as 4:2024cv01387
Petitioner:
Matthew Jones
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Wood v. TDCJ Director Bobby Lumpkin
as 2:2024cv00077
Petitioner:
Aaron Blake Wood
Respondent:
TDCJ Director Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Garcia v. Lumpkin
as 5:2024cv00392
Petitioner:
Antonio Andres Garcia
Respondent:
Director of TDCJ Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Riggs, Sr. v. Lumpkin et al.
as 7:2024cv00099
Plaintiff:
James Tyrone Riggs, Sr
Defendant:
Director Bobby Lumpkin, Chairman David G. Gutierrez, Parole Boardmember Elodia Brito and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Canfield v. Collier et al
as 6:2024cv00060
Plaintiff:
Jerry Lee Canfield
Defendant:
Bryan Collier, Timothy Fitzpatrick, Bobby Lumpkin and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hinton v. Lumpkin
as 3:2024cv00109
Petitioner:
Cordell Deonzio Hinton
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Garcia v. Lumpkin
as 24-20160
Petitioner:
Ernesto Garcia
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.
