Cases 1 - 10 of 13
Leffel (ID 2000081522) v. Crum et al
as 5:2026cv03055
Plaintiff:
Jordan M. Leffel
Defendant:
Colby Crum, Jesse Howes and Gene Goldston, Jr.
Interested Party:
Kansas Department of Corrections
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Steen (ID 2000015663) v. Howes
as 5:2025cv03264
Petitioner:
Barry Owen Steen
Respondent:
Jesse Howes
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Woodward v. Zmuda, et al
as 25-3209
Plaintiff:
DAVID L. WOODWARD
Defendant:
JEFF ZMUDA, JESSE HOWES, J. CROUSE and others
Langford Sosa v. Howes
as 5:2025cv03245
Respondent:
Jesse Howes
Petitioner:
Jason Robert Langford Sosa
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Davis v. Howes, et al
as 25-3102
Plaintiff:
KEVIN TAMAR DAVIS
Defendant:
JESSE HOWES, JAMES SKIDMORE, FRED C. CANNON, D.D.S. - Doctor of Dental Science and others
Woodward (ID 200025235) v. Zmuda et al
as 5:2025cv03110
Plaintiff:
David L. Woodward
Defendant:
Jesse Howes, J. Crouse, Leslie West and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Adams v. Kansas Department of Corrections, et al
as 25-3013
Plaintiff:
VALENTAE E. ADAMS
Defendant:
KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, JESSE HOWES, JEFF ZMUDA and others
Steen (ID 44300) v. Howes
as 5:2025cv03004
Petitioner:
Barry Owen Steen
Respondent:
Jesse Howes
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Scott (ID 78080) v. Howes
as 5:2024cv03235
Respondent:
Jesse Howes
Petitioner:
Michael Ray Scott
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hickert (ID 125871) v. Kansas Department of Corrections et al
as 5:2024cv03229
Defendant:
Kevin Goodman, Stacy Heald, Kansas Department of Corrections and others
Plaintiff:
Braden Hickert
Interested Party:
Kansas Department of Corrections
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
