Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Williams v. Lumpkin
as 23-20578
Petitioner / Appellant:
Jaylan Rochard Williams, Sr.
Respondent / Appellee:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Williams v. Lumpkin
as 23-11188
Petitioner / Appellant:
Jaylan Rochard Williams, Sr.
Respondent / Appellee:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Williams v. Lumpkin
as 4:2023cv02669
Petitioner:
Jaylan Rochard Williams, Sr
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Williams v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 2:2023cv00080
Petitioner:
Jaylan Rochard Williams, Sr
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Williams v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 1:2023cv00144
Petitioner:
Jaylan Rochard Williams, Sr
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Williams v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 1:2023cv00145
Petitioner:
Jaylan Rochard Williams, Sr
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Williams v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 1:2023cv00003
Petitioner:
Jaylan Rochard Williams, Sr
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Williams v. Lumpkin
as 22-40773
Petitioner / Appellant:
Jaylan Rochard Williams, Sr.
Respondent / Appellee:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Williams v. Dickerson
as 1:2021cv00252
Defendant:
FNU Dickerson
Plaintiff:
Jaylan Rochard Williams, Sr
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Williams v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 1:2019cv00509
Petitioner:
Jaylan Rochard Williams, Sr
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
