Cases 1 - 10 of 15
Peters v. Director, TDCJ-CID et al
as 3:2022cv02162
Plaintiff:
Michael Geoffrey Peters
Defendant:
Director, TDCJ-CID and Dinah Hoffman
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Peters v. Lumpkin
as 22-40596
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Michael G. Peters
Defendant / Appellee:
Bobby Lumpkin, Texas Department of Criminal Justice and Dinah Hoffman
Peters v. Lumpkin
as 22-40425
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Michael G. Peters
Defendant / Appellee:
Bobby Lumpkin, Texas Department of Criminal Justice and Dinah Hoffman
Peters v. Lumpkin et al
as 3:2022cv00173
Plaintiff:
Michael G. Peters
Defendant:
Bobby Lumpkin, Texas Department of Criminal Justice and Dinah Hoffman
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Peters v. TDCJ
as 22-40140
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Michael G. Peters
Defendant / Appellee:
Texas Department of Criminal Justice, State of Texas and Dinah Hoffman, Mail Room Supervisor
Peters v. Texas Department Of Criminal Justice et al
as 4:2022cv00571
Plaintiff:
Michael G Peters
Defendant:
Texas Department Of Criminal Justice and Dinah Hoffman
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Peters v. TDCJ
as 22-40002
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Michael G. Peters
Defendant / Appellee:
Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Dinah Hoffman, mail room supervisor and State of Texas
Peters v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice et al
as 3:2021cv00339
Plaintiff:
Michael G Peters
Defendant:
Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Dinah Hoffman and State of Texas
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Peters v. TDCJ
as 21-20507
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Michael Geoffrey Peters
Defendant / Appellee:
Texas Department of Criminal Justice, State of Texas and Dinah Hoffman, Mailroom Supervisor
Peters v. TDCJ
as 21-20440
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Michael G. Peters
Defendant / Appellee:
Texas Department of Criminal Justice, State of Texas and Dinah Hoffman
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.
