Cases 1 - 10 of 12
Martin v. Busby
as 2:2023cv00139
Petitioner:
Daniel Neal Martin
Respondent:
Larry R Busby
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Martin v. Live Oak County Jail
as 2:2022cv00260
Plaintiff:
Daniel Neal Martin
Defendant:
Live Oak County Jail, Daniel Coban Barton, Jailer Perry and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Martin v. Busby et al
as 2:2022cv00181
Plaintiff:
Daniel Neal Martin
Defendant:
Sheriff Larry Busby, Charlie Stroleny, Deputy Nowlan and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Martin v. Live Oak County Jail et al
as 2:2022cv00156
Defendant:
Daniel Coban Barton, Live Oak County Jail, Live Oak County Sheriffs Dept and others
Plaintiff:
Daniel Neal Martin
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Neal v. Collier et al
as 7:2021cv00066
Plaintiff:
Daniel Neal
Defendant:
Bryan Collier, Elbert Holmes, Nina Lynn and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Neal v. Reed et al
as 9:2021cv00003
Respondent:
Bruce Johnson, Tiffany Long, Jaquille Reed and others
Plaintiff:
Daniel Neal
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Neal v. Reed et al DO NOT DOCKET. Case electronically transferred to the USDC, Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin Division.
as 4:2020cv04381
Defendant:
Bruce Johnson, Terry Andrews, Jessica Riley and others
Plaintiff:
Daniel Neal
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Neal v. Demaroney et al
as 2:2020cv00108
Defendant:
Terry Raines, April Demaroney, Jason Hardegree and others
Plaintiff:
Daniel Neal
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Neal v. Unknown Defendant
as 2:2019cv00036
Defendant:
Unknown Defendant
Plaintiff:
Daniel Neal
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Neal v. DeShields et al
as 2:2018cv00026
Plaintiff:
Daniel Neal
Defendant:
Denise DeShields, Dana Butle, Myra L. Walker and others
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.
