Cases 1 - 10 of 23
Christopher FennerIn re: Christopher Fenner
as 22-50856
Petitioner:
In re: Christopher Roland Fenner
Fenner v. Lumpkin
as 6:2022cv00819
Petitioner:
Christopher Roland Fenner
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Fenner v. Lumpkin
as 6:2022cv00808
Petitioner:
Christopher Roland Fenner
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin-Director TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Fenner v. Director
as 3:2022cv01398
Petitioner:
Christopher Roland Fenner
Respondent:
TDCJ-CID Director and Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Fenner v. Director
as 3:2022cv01397
Petitioner:
Christopher Roland Fenner
Respondent:
TDCJ-CID Director and Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Fenner v. Hanna et al
as 3:2022cv01394
Plaintiff:
Christopher Roland Fenner
Defendant:
Dale Hanna, Wayne Bridewell, Anthony Wayne Yocham and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Fenner v. Director
as 3:2022cv01395
Petitioner:
Christopher Roland Fenner
Respondent:
TDCJ-CID Director and Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Fenner v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 3:2022cv00490
Petitioner:
Christopher Roland Fenner
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
ROLAND v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 7:2020cv11181
Defendant:
AEARO HOLDING LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE LLC, AEARO TECHNOLOGIES LLC and others
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER ROLAND
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
JOHNSTON v. NORTH BRADDOCK BOROUGH et al
as 2:2019cv01548
Defendant:
JEROME SEPESY, TINA DIXON, CHIEF ISAAC DANIELE and others
Plaintiff:
RYAN JOHNSTON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
