Cases 1 - 10 of 18
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, II v. Marion County Jail et al
as 4:2019cv00719
Plaintiff:
Prentis Earl Smith, II
Defendant:
Marion County Sheriff's Office, Marion County Jail and Marion County District Clerk's Office
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Smith v. Davis-Director TDCJ-CID
as 3:2019cv00182
Petitioner:
Michael Earl Smith
Respondent:
Lorie Davis-Director TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Smith v. Marion County Sheriff's Office et al
as 2:2018cv00345
Plaintiff:
Prentis Earl Smith, II
Defendant:
Jefferson Police Department, Sheriff David McKnight, Marion County Sheriff's Office 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.
