Cases 1 - 10 of 27
Fannings v. State of Mississippi
as 3:2023cv00160
Petitioner:
James A Fannings, Jr.
Respondent:
State of Mississippi
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Fanning v. State of Texas
as 5:2021cv00912
Petitioner:
Markees Allen D'sh Fanning
Respondent:
State of Texas
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
McGaugh v. Griffin et al
as 4:2020cv00323
Defendant:
FNU Williams, FNU Porter, FNU Stripland and others
Plaintiff:
Robert W. McGaugh
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Fannings v. Hood
as 4:2018cv00193
Petitioner:
James A. Fannings, Jr.
Respondent:
Attorney General Jim Hood
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Fanning v. Director TDCJ-CID
as 1:2018cv00367
Defendant:
Director, TDCJ-CID
Plaintiff:
Alan Jay Fanning
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Fanning v. Director TDCJ-CID
as 5:2018cv00091
Respondent:
Director TDCJ-CID and Director, TDCJ-CID
Petitioner:
Alan Jay Fanning
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Harris v Rodriguez et al
as 3:2018cv00018
Plaintiff:
James Allen Harris
Defendant:
Francisco J. Rodriguez, Rodolfo Diaz, Fernator J Smith and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Wicker v. Fanning
as 4:2016cv00525
Plaintiff:
Jeremy Daniel Wicker
Defendant:
D. Fanning
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Michael Bohannan v. Wesley Griffin, et al
as 15-11217
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MICHAEL BOHANNAN
Defendant - Appellee:
WESLEY GRIFFIN, in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as CSOT Program Specialist, ALLISON TAYLOR, in individual capacity only, LISA WORRY, in her individual capacity and in her official capacity as OVSOM Program Specialist and others
Michael Bohannan v. Wesley Griffin, et al
as 14-10855
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MICHAEL W. BOHANNAN
Defendant - Appellee:
WESLEY GRIFFIN, CSOT Case Manager, JOHN DOE, I, CSOT, Case Manager Supervisor, TROOPER DOE, I, Department of Public Safety and others
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.