Cases 61 - 70 of 1,195
Mason v. Lumpkin
as 24-10087
Petitioner:
Deondray Raymond Mason
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, res
Wells v. Lumpkin
as 24-70002
Petitioner:
Amos Wells
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Kaderli v. Lumpkin
as 24-40068
Petitioner:
Roland Kaderli, Jr.
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division and Bobby Rader
Rice v. Lumpkin
as 24-10071
Petitioner:
Reginald Donell Rice
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Falconer v. Collier
as 24-40057
Plaintiff:
Perry Dewayne Falconer
Defendant:
Bryan Collier, Executive Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Jimmy Bowman, Warden, Powledge Unit, Texas Board of Criminal Justice and others
Smith v. Lumpkin
as 24-20040
Petitioner:
Patrick Bernard Smith
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Oden v. Lumpkin
as 24-40044
Petitioner:
John David Oden
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Enriquez v. DHS Immigration
as 24-20035
Plaintiff:
Ricardo Enriquez
Defendant:
Department of Homeland Security Immigration Department, Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Ken Paxton, Attorney General, State of Texas and others
Ellison v. Lumpkin
as 24-10054
Petitioner:
Jacob Douglas Ellison
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Clemons v. Lumpkin
as 24-20032
Plaintiff:
John Henry Clemons, III
Defendant:
Bobby Lumpkin, Rocky Moore, Patrick O'Daniel and others
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.
