Cases 1 - 10 of 17
Geiger v. Lumpkin
as 24-40022
Petitioner:
Michael E. Geiger
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division and Laura Haney
Geiger v. Lumpkin
as 6:2023cv00114
Petitioner:
Michael E. Geiger
Defendant:
Laura Haney and Bobby Lumpkin
Respondent:
State of Texas
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Geiger v. Lumpkin
as 1:2023cv00201
Petitioner:
Michael E. Geiger
Respondent:
State of Texas
Defendant:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Geiger v. Coker et al
as 6:2022cv00266
Plaintiff:
Michael E. Geiger
Defendant:
Teresia Coker and Teresa Wadall
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Geiger v. State of Texas
as 5:2020cv00257
Petitioner:
Michael E Geiger
Respondent:
State of Texas
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Michael Geiger v. Lorie Davis, Director
as 19-10487
Petitioner / Appellant:
MICHAEL E. GEIGER
Respondent / Appellee:
LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION
Michael Geiger v. Paul Hampel, et al
as 18-50411
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MICHAEL E. GEIGER
Defendant - Appellee:
PAUL A. HAMPEL, SOLOMON CASSEB, III, RENEE YANTA and others
Geiger v. Hampel et al
as 1:2018cv00317
Defendant:
Solomon Casseb, III, Paul A. Hampel, Stephanie Walsh and others
Plaintiff:
Michael E. Geiger
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Michael Geiger v. Lorie Davis, Director
as 18-40295
Petitioner - Appellant:
MICHAEL E. GEIGER
Respondent - Appellee:
LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION
Michael Geiger v. Lorie Davis, Director
as 17-10845
Petitioner - Appellant:
MICHAEL E. GEIGER
Respondent - Appellee:
LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION
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.
