Cases 11 - 20 of 3,293
Garcia v. Lumpkin
as 24-40306
Plaintiff:
Antonio A. Garcia
Defendant:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division and State of Texas
Garcia v. Lumpkin
as 24-40308
Plaintiff:
Antonio A. Garcia
Defendant:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division and State of Texas
Garcia v. Lumpkin
as 24-40309
Plaintiff:
Antonio A. Garcia
Defendant:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division and State of Texas
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
Frankenfield v. Lumpkin
as 4:2024cv01560
Petitioner:
Brian C Frankenfield
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Evans v. Lumpkin-Director TDCJ-CID
as 6:2024cv00218
Petitioner:
Douglas Ray Evans
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin-Director TDCJ-CID
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)
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.
