Cases 31 - 40 of 666
Rankin v. Unknown Defendant
as 1:2023cv00209
Plaintiff:
Remelus Ra'mon Rankin
Defendant:
Unknown Defendant
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Seals v. Rankins
as 5:2023cv00737
Petitioner:
Curtis Bernard Seals
Respondent:
Chris Rankins
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Melson v. Rankins
as 4:2023cv00338
Petitioner:
Brian Lee Melson
Respondent:
William Rankins
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Melson v. Rankins
as 4:2023cv00336
Petitioner:
Brian Lee Melson
Respondent:
William Rankins
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Melson v. Rankins
as 4:2023cv00339
Petitioner:
Brian Lee Melson
Respondent:
William Rankins
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hampton v. City of Loves Park Illinois et al
as 3:2023cv50273
Plaintiff:
JERMAINE ANTON HAMPTON
Defendant:
CITY OF LOVES PARK ILLINOIS, WINNEBAGO COUNTY ILLINOIS, CITY OF LOVES PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Hilburn v. Rankins
as 23-7050
Petitioner / Appellant:
RALPH RICHARD HILBURN, II
Respondent / Appellee:
WILLIAM RANKINS
Alberty v. Rankins
as 4:2023cv00312
Petitioner:
Farron Whitney Alberty
Respondent:
United States of America, William Rankins and Chris Rankins
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Rankin v. Marschke et al
as 3:2023cv08397
Plaintiff:
Edward M Rankin
Defendant:
R Marschke, Diane Miller and GEO Group
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Luginbyhl v. Rankins
as 4:2023cv00279
Petitioner:
Levi McRae Luginbyhl
Respondent:
State of Oklahoma and William Chris Rankins
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.
