Cases 1 - 10 of 24
Everett v. Kelly
as 6:2020cv00070
Petitioner:
Ronald Everett
Respondent:
Brandon Kelly
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Newton v. Davis-Director TDCJ-CID
as 3:2019cv01366
Petitioner:
Ronald Everett Newton
Respondent:
Lorie Davis-Director TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Newton v. Davis-Director TDCJ-CID
as 3:2018cv02765
Petitioner:
Ronald Everett Newton
Respondent:
Lorie Davis-Director TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Ronald Everett v. M. Black
as 17-16619
Plaintiff - Appellant:
RONALD EVERETT
Defendant - Appellee:
M. BLACK, ISU Officer
Everett v. Black
as 1:2016cv01285
Plaintiff:
Ronald Everett
Defendant:
M. Black
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ronald Newton v. William Stephens, Director, et al
as 15-10199
Petitioner - Appellant:
RONALD E. NEWTON, also known as Ronald Everett Newton
Respondent - Appellee:
WILLIAM STEPHENS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, In his individual capacity, in personam and STATE OF TEXAS, a Defacto Corporation, Fiction, Third Party
Ronald Everett v. Brazelton
as 13-17035
Plaintiff - Appellant:
RONALD EVERETT
Defendant - Appellee:
BRAZELTON, Warden
Rentfro et al v. Illinois Department of Corrections et al
as 2:2013cv02056
Plaintiff:
Daniel S Rentfro , Sherwin Savage , Robert Hendricks and others
Defendant:
Illinois Department of Corrections, Michael Puisis, Louis Schicker and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Newton v. Watkins et al
as 3:2013cv00817
Petitioner:
Ronald Everett Newton
Respondent:
Craig Watkins, Russell Wilson, II, Brad Livingston and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Newton v. Livingston et al
as 1:2013cv00037
Plaintiff:
Ronald Everett Newton
Defendant:
Brad Livingston, Michael Roesler and James Michael
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
