Cases 41 - 50 of 3,302
Conley v. Lumpkin
as 4:2024cv00850
Petitioner:
David Ray Conley, III
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Douglas v. Lumpkin
as 4:2024cv00855
Petitioner:
Roderick Bernard Douglas
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Baughman v. Bowman
as 24-40286
Plaintiff:
Steven Kurt Baughman
Defendant:
Jimmy Bowman, Warden, Powledge Unit, Vernon Mitchel, Assitant Warden, Powledge Unit, Ronnie Stanhope, Lieutenant, Powledge Unit and others
Kindred v. Lumpkin
as 6:2024cv00219
Petitioner:
Herman Lee Kindred
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin-Director TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Padilla v. Lumpkin
as 24-10365
Petitioner:
Ismael Hernandez Padilla
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Nettles v. Lumpkin
as 4:2024cv00980
Petitioner:
Donovan Nettles and Donavan Nettles
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Richardson v. Lumpkin
as 4:2024cv01546
Petitioner:
Johnny Richardson
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hubert v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 1:2024cv00082
Petitioner:
Lawrence Israel Hubert
Respondent:
Director Bobby Lumpkin-Director TDCJ-CID and Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Herrera v. Lumpkin
as 1:2024cv00440
Petitioner:
Carlos Herrera
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Brantley v. Lumpkin
as 24-10363
Petitioner:
Ross Thomas Brantley, III
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.
