Cases 1 - 10 of 14
Stephens v. US Department of the Army - Civilian et al
as 4:2023cv00298
Plaintiff:
Keisha L Stephens
Defendant:
US Department of the Army - Civilian, Lloyd J.Austin III, Secretary of Defense, Kathleen H. Hicks, Deputy Secretary of Defense and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442 Notice of Removal
Stephen v. Royal Pacific Funding Corporation
as 5:2022cv00389
Plaintiff:
Shannon L. Stephen
Defendant:
Royal Pacific Funding Corporation, Troy Martin, Deborah Martin and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2018cv03373
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2018cv00653
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
De Leon v. Stephens
as 6:2016cv00010
Petitioner:
Antonio De Leon , III
Respondent:
William L Stephens
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Allen v. Stephens
as 4:2016cv00469
Petitioner:
William Andrew Allen
Respondent:
William L Stephens
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Allen v. Stephens. DO NOT DOCKET IN H-16-439. CASE IS CONSOLIDATED UNDER H-16-333.
as 4:2016cv00439
Petitioner:
William Andrew Allen
Respondent:
William L Stephens
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Lopez v. Stephens
as 7:2015cv00092
Notice Only Party:
Laura Haney
Petitioner:
Isaac Soria Lopez
Respondent:
William L. Stephens
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Thurman v. Stephens
as 1:2015cv00117
Petitioner:
Colby Ross Thurman
Respondent:
William L. Stephens
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Smith v. Livingston
as 6:2015cv00017
Notice Only Party:
Laura Haney
Respondent:
Brad Livingston
Petitioner:
Roy Dean Smith
Defendant:
William L. Stephens
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.
