Cases 1 - 9 of 9
Murray Hooper v. David Shinn, et al
as 22-99012
Petitioner / Appellant:
MURRAY HOOPER
Respondent / Appellee:
DAVID SHINN, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation & Reentry, STACI IBARRA, Warden, Eyman Prison and RODNEY CARR, Warden, Florence Prison
Hooper v. Shinn et al
as 2:2022cv01935
Petitioner:
Murray Hooper
Respondent:
David Shinn, Staci Ibarra and Rodney Carr
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution
Murray Hooper v. Mark Brnovich, et al
as 22-16764
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MURRAY HOOPER
Defendant / Appellee:
MARK BRNOVICH, Attorney General, of Arizona and MICHAEL SULLIVAN, Interim Police Chief, City of Phoenix
Hooper v. Brnovich et al
as 2:2022cv01923
Plaintiff:
Murray Hooper
Defendant:
Mark Brnovich, Jeri Williams and Michael Sullivan
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Murray Hooper v. David Shinn, et al
as 21-70995
Respondent:
DAVID SHINN, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry, WALTER HENSLEY, Warden, Arizona State Prison - Eyman Complex and JEFFREY VAN WINKLE, Warden, Arizona State Prison - Florence Complex
Petitioner:
MURRAY HOOPER
Murray Hooper v. Charles Ryan, et al
as 12-1980
Petitioner - Appellant:
MURRAY HOOPER
Respondent - Appellee:
CHARLES L. RYAN, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ILLLINOIS
Hooper v. Ryan, et al
as 1:2010cv01809
Petitioner:
Murray Hooper
Respondent:
Charles L Ryan and Attorney General of the State of Illinois
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Murray Hooper v. Dora Schriro
as 08-99024
Petitioner - Appellant:
MURRAY HOOPER
Respondent - Appellee:
DORA B. SCHRIRO
Hooper, et al v. Schriro, et al
as 2:1998cv02164
Petitioner:
Murray Hooper
Respondent:
Dora B Schriro
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution
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.
