Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Palomo v. Collier
as 23-40636
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Reynaldo Palomo
Defendant / Appellee:
Bryan Collier, Bobby Lumpkin, Evelyn Castro and others
Brooks v. Collier et al
as 1:2023cv01110
Plaintiff:
Sherman D. Brooks
Defendant:
Bryan Collier, Edmundo Cueto, Jr. and Cirildo Puente, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Brooks v. Collier et al
as 5:2023cv01154
Plaintiff:
Sherman D. Brooks
Defendant:
Bryan Collier, Edmundo Cueto, Jr. and Cirildo Puente, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Palomo v. Collier et al
as 2:2023cv00037
Plaintiff:
Reynaldo Palomo
Defendant:
Bryan Collier, Bobby Lumpkin, Evelyn Castro and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Mejia v. Sanchez et al
as 2:2021cv00227
Plaintiff:
Lorenzo Mejia, JR
Defendant:
Sanchez, Daniel P. Fernandez, Gene E Milller and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Chester Huff v. Richard Crites, et al
as 11-40895
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CHESTER LOWE HUFF
Defendant - Appellee:
RICHARD CRITES, KIMBERLY SAMUALS, CIRILDO PUENTE, JR. and others
Garlinton v. Guterrez et al
as 2:2011cv00182
Petitioner:
Joseph Germaine Garlinton
Respondent:
Earnest Guterrez, Jr., Cirildo Puente, Jr., Tommy Hill and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Kelly v. Trevino et al
as 5:2010cv00968
Defendant:
Raymond Almendarez, Matt Barber, Sandra Castenada and others
Plaintiff:
Bobby Kelly
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Huff v. Crites et al
as 2:2010cv00225
Plaintiff:
Chester Lowe Huff
Defendant:
Richard Crites, Kimberly Samuals , Cirildo Puente, Jr and others
Amicu:
TDCJ - Office of General Counsel and Office Of The Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Mitchell v. Puente
as 2:2009cv00213
Petitioner:
Maurice Mitchell
Respondent:
Cirildo Puente
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
