Cases 21 - 30 of 331
Garcia v. Lumpkin
as 5:2023cv01482
Petitioner:
Adrian A. Garcia and Antonio A. Garcia
Respondent:
Director of TDCJ Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Talamantez v. Lumpkin
as 5:2023cv01402
Petitioner:
Ruben Talamantez, Jr.
Respondent:
Director of TDCJ Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Cobb v. Collier et al;
as 2:2023cv00281
Plaintiff:
Raymond Cobb
Defendant:
Director of TDCJ Bryan Collier, Warden J Smith, Sr and Sgt. Rushing
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Menchaca v. Lumpkin
as 5:2023cv01337
Petitioner:
Mario Menchaca
Respondent:
Director of TDCJ Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Cano v. Lumpkin
as 5:2023cv01330
Petitioner:
Ruben Alvino Cano
Respondent:
Director of TDCJ Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Alvarado v. Lumpkin
as 5:2023cv01236
Petitioner:
Trinidad Alvarado
Respondent:
Director of TDCJ Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Odom v. Lumpkin
as 5:2023cv01195
Petitioner:
Kyle Mitchell Odom
Respondent:
Director of TDCJ Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Green v. Lumpkin
as 5:2023cv01079
Petitioner:
Lowell Quincy Green
Respondent:
Director of TDCJ Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Green v. Lumpkin
as 5:2023cv01053
Petitioner:
Lowell Green
Respondent:
Director Of TDCJ Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Green v. Lumpkin
as 5:2023cv00953
Petitioner:
Lowell Green
Respondent:
Director of TDCJ Bobby Lumpkin
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.
