Cases 1 - 8 of 8
Reaves v. Lumpkin
as 22-10612
Petitioner / Appellant:
Samuel Reaves
Respondent / Appellee:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, David Gutierrez, Texas Department of Criminal Justice Parole Division, Ken Paxton, Attorney General and others
Reaves v. Lumpkin
as 22-10430
Petitioner / Appellant:
Samuel Reaves
Respondent / Appellee:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, David Gutierrez, TDCJ-Parole Division and Dale Stanley Hanna, Johnson Co District Attorney
Reaves v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 3:2022cv00536
Petitioner:
Samuel Reaves
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ-CID, David Gutierrez, Ken Paxton and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Reaves v. Director, TDCJ-CID et al
as 4:2022cv00008
Petitioner:
Samuel Reaves
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ-CID and David Gutierrez
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Samuel Reaves v. Rick Thaler, Director
as 12-10355
Petitioner - Appellant:
SAMUEL REAVES
Respondent - Appellee:
RICK THALER, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION
Samuel Reaves v. Richard Voglegesang, et al
as 12-10350
Plaintiff - Appellant:
SAMUEL REAVES
Defendant - Appellee:
RICHARD VOGLEGESANG, Senior Warden- Preston E. Smith Unit, JAMES RAMSEY, Head of Classification-Preston E. Smith, F. EARLY, Assistant Warden-Preston E. Smith Unit and others
Reaves v. Thaler, Director TDCJ-CID
as 4:2011cv00740
Petitioner:
Samuel Reaves
Respondent:
Rick Thaler, Director TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Reaves v. Voglegesang et al
as 5:2010cv00044
Plaintiff:
Samuel Reaves
Defendant:
Richard Voglegesang, James Ramsey, F Early and others
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.
