Cases 1 - 10 of 560
McDonald v. Lilly et al
as 5:2024cv00335
Plaintiff:
Alexis McDonald, Jr
Defendant:
Amanda Lilly, Garfield County Detention Center and Oklahoma State of
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Gravlee v. Tibbs et al
as 5:2024cv00221
Plaintiff:
John Christian Gravlee
Defendant:
FNU Tibbs, FNU Prince, FNU Kala and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Bruner v. Oklahoma State of
as 5:2024cv00184
Petitioner:
Jamele R Bruner
Respondent:
Oklahoma State of
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Gravlee v. Oklahoma State of et al
as 5:2024cv00167
Plaintiff:
John Christian Gravlee and John Kennedy
Defendant:
Oklahoma State of, Garfield County Authority, Oklahoma Bar Association and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Brooks v. Seigars et al
as 5:2024cv00164
Plaintiff:
Clarence Brooks
Defendant:
Jason Seigars, Paul Woodward and Oklahoma State of
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Cross v. Lovell et al
as 5:2024cv00156
Plaintiff:
Douglas Roy Cross, Jr
Defendant:
Bryan Lovell, Logan Niles, FNU Gibson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Brooks v. Lilly et al
as 5:2024cv00122
Plaintiff:
Clarence Brooks
Defendant:
Amanda Lilly and Oklahoma State of
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Mendenhall v. Oklahoma State of
as 5:2024cv00115
Plaintiff:
Jessie Mendenhall
Defendant:
Oklahoma State of
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jones v. Oklahoma State of
as 5:2024cv00013
Petitioner:
William D Jones
Respondent:
Oklahoma State of
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hendricks v. Oklahoma State of
as 5:2023cv01078
Petitioner:
Allen Ray Hendricks
Respondent:
Oklahoma State of
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.
