Cases 1 - 10 of 17
Christopher Payne v. Ryan Thornell, et al
as 23-15174
Petitioner / Appellant:
CHRISTOPHER MATHEW PAYNE
Respondent / Appellee:
RYAN THORNELL, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation & Reentry, STEPHEN MORRIS, Warden, Arizona State Prison - Eyman Complex and JEFF VAN WINKLE, Warden, Arizona State Prison- Florence Complex
DeMocker v. Shinn et al
as 3:2022cv08203
Petitioner:
Steven Carroll DeMocker
Respondent:
David Shinn, Stephen Morris and Jeff Van Winkle
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Atwood v. Shinn et al
as 2:2022cv00860
Plaintiff:
Frank Jarvis Atwood
Defendant:
David Shinn, James Kimble, Jeff Van Winkle and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Atwood v. Shinn et al
as 4:2022cv00184
Plaintiff:
Frank Jarvis Atwood
Defendant:
David Shinn, James Kimble, Jeff Van Winkle and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Atwood v. Shinn et al
as 2:2022cv00625
Plaintiff:
Frank Jarvis Atwood
Defendant:
David Shinn, James Kimble, Jeff Van Winkle and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Gomez v. Shinn et al
as 2:2021cv01529
Petitioner:
Fabio Evelio Gomez
Respondent:
David Shinn, Walter Hensley and Jeff Van Winkle
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Reeves v. Shinn et al
as 2:2021cv01183
Petitioner:
Stephen Douglas Reeves
Respondent:
David Shinn, Walter Hensley and Jeff Van Winkle
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Burns v. Shinn et al
as 2:2021cv01173
Petitioner:
Johnathan Ian Burns
Respondent:
David Shinn, Walter Hensley and Jeff Van Winkle
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Miller v. Shinn et al
as 2:2021cv00992
Respondent:
David Shinn, Jeff Van Winkle and Walter Hensley
Petitioner:
William Craig Miller
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Medina v. Shinn et al
as 2:2021cv00889
Respondent:
David Shinn, Jeff Van Winkle and Walter Hensley
Petitioner:
Efren Medina
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.
