Cases 1 - 10 of 95
Fletcher v. Whitten, et al
as 26-6011
Plaintiff:
RANDALL EDWARD FLETCHER
Defendant:
RICK WHITTEN, DAVID ROGERS, CHRIS MATTINGLY and others
David v. Hodges, et al
as 25-7083
Plaintiff:
JEROME ADRIAN DAVID
Defendant:
DUSTIN HODGES, JOANNA BOETTLER, ANGELA CACEY, AKA Angela Casey and others
Torres v. Whitten et al
as 1:2025cv00325
Petitioner:
Alexias Torres
Respondent:
Rick Whitten and Attorney General for the State of New Mexico
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Munoz v. Whitten et al
as 1:2024cv01094
Petitioner:
Danny L. Munoz
Respondent:
Rick Whitten and Attorney General for the State of New Mexico
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Fletcher v. Whitten et al
as 5:2024cv00692
Defendant:
Chris Mattingly, Securus Technologies, Mark Knutson and others
Plaintiff:
Randall Edward Fletcher
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Ezell v. Cole, et al
as 24-6025
Plaintiff:
JAMES RICKY EZELL, III
Defendant:
DAVID COLE, Warden GEO, L.C.F., individual and official capacity, FNU RUSSELL, L/T, Mr., S.T.G. GEO, L.C.F., individual and official capacity, FNU COOPER, L/T, Ms., S.T.G. GEO, L.C.F., individual capacity and others
Hicks v. Whitten
as 5:2023cv01138
Plaintiff:
Charles P Hicks
Defendant:
Rick Whitten
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
David v. Hodges et al
as 6:2023cv00405
Defendant:
Angela Cacey, FNU Fisk, Dustin Hodges and others
Plaintiff:
Jerome Adrian David
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Ezell v. Cole, et al
as 23-6110
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JAMES RICKY EZELL, III
Defendant / Appellee:
DAVID COLE, Warden GEO, L.C.F., individual and official capacity, FNU RUSSELL, L/T, Mr., S.T.G. GEO, L.C.F., individual and official capacity, FNU ROGERS, L/T, Mr., S.T.G. GEO, L.C.F., individual capacity and others
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.
