Cases 1 - 10 of 118
Ray v. Amazon.com Services, LLC
as 4:2023cv01116
Plaintiff:
Michael Ray
Defendant:
Amazon.com Services, LLC
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Senn v. Lumpkin
as 23-10661
Petitioner / Appellant:
Michael Ray Senn
Respondent / Appellee:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Watkins v. Allen et al
as 4:2023cv00212
Plaintiff:
Michael Ray Watkins
Defendant:
Wanda Allen, Dr. FNU LNU and Hopkins County Sheriff
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Senn v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 4:2023cv00187
Petitioner:
Michael Ray Senn
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin-Director TDCJ-CID and Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Orr v. Lumpkin
as 4:2022cv03424
Petitioner:
Michael Ray Orr
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2022cv03008
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
USA v. Martinez
as 22-10788
Plaintiff / Appellee:
United States of America
Defendant / Appellant:
Michael Ray Martinez, Jr., also known as Mike Martinez, also known as eastsidebabymike_, also known as easymoney_mike
Forbes v. Zook et al
as 3:2022cv00687
Plaintiff:
Michael Ray Forbes
Defendant:
R Zook, FCI Seagoville, United States of America and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Forbes v. Zook et al
as 3:2022cv00582
Petitioner:
Michael Ray Forbes
Respondent:
R Zook and F J Garrido
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Ferguson v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 3:2022cv00580
Petitioner:
Michael Ray Ferguson
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ-CID
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.
