Cases 1 - 10 of 27
Smith v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 2:2024cv00160
Plaintiff:
Joe Earl Smith
Defendant:
Director TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Smith v. NetSpend Corporation et al
as 2:2024cv00161
Plaintiff:
Prentis Earl Smith, II
Defendant:
NetSpend Corporation and Netspend Legal Dept
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Smith v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 3:2024cv00219
Petitioner:
Joe Earl Smith
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Smith v. Lumpkin
as 4:2023cv04299
Petitioner:
Thomas Earl Smith
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Smith v. United States of America
as 4:2023cv03024
Plaintiff:
Thomas Earl Smith
Defendant:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Smith v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 9:2023cv00134
Petitioner:
Thomas Earl Smith
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 9:2023cv00121
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Smith v. Marion County
as 23-40151
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Prentis Earl Smith, II
Defendant / Appellee:
Marion County Sheriff's Office, Sheriff David McKnight, Jefferson Police Department and others
Smith v. Oceaneering Mobile Workforce LLC et al
as 2:2023cv00469
Plaintiff:
James Earl Smith, II
Defendant:
Oceaneering Mobile Workforce LLC, Diamond Offshore Drilling Company, Inc., BP Exploration & Production, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 46 U.S.C. § 30104 Marine Personal Injury
Smith v. Futch et al
as 1:2021cv00056
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Defendant:
Jackson County Circuit Court, David Futch and Wendy Neviels
Plaintiff:
Richard Earl Smith
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.
