Cases 1 - 10 of 73
Murphy v. Lumpkin
as 4:2024cv01262
Petitioner:
John Eldridge Murphy
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Eldridge v. Lumpkin et al
as 2:2023cv00175
Plaintiff:
Donnell Eldridge
Defendant:
Bobby Lumpkin, N Martin and H W Pederson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
L.C. Eldridge Sales Co., Ltd. v. NFE PIONEER I et al
as 2:2023cv00225
Plaintiff:
L.C. Eldridge Sales Co., Ltd.
Defendant:
NFE PIONEER I, NFE PIONEER II and NFE Fast LNG Operations, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1333 Admiralty
Murphy v. Lumpkin
as 4:2023cv03163
Petitioner:
John Eldridge Murphy
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkins and Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Murphy v. Lumpkin
as 4:2023cv02888
Petitioner:
John Eldridge Murphy
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Murphy v. Lumpkin
as 4:2023cv02805
Petitioner:
John Eldridge Murphy
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Murphy v. Durham et al
as 4:2023cv02638
Plaintiff:
John Eldridge Murphy
Defendant:
William Durham, Hal Ridley, Chris Thompson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Murphy v. Chavelier et al
as 4:2023cv01600
Plaintiff:
John Elridge Murphy and John Eldridge Murphy
Defendant:
Warden Chavelier, Warden Strong, Brian Collier and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Murphy v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 4:2023cv01436
Petitioner:
John Eldridge Murphy
Respondent:
Director TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Murphy v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 4:2023cv01055
Petitioner:
John Eldridge Murphy
Defendant:
Director TDCJ-CID
Respondent:
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.
