Cases 1 - 10 of 406
In re: Shirley
as 24-6055
Petitioner:
ROBERT ALLEN SHIRLEY
Respondent:
SCOTT CROW, Director of O.D.D.C.
Blankenship, et al v. Stitt, et al
as 24-6053
Plaintiff:
JOHN HAYDEN BLANKENSHIP, as Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of Andrea Lynn Blankenship, deceased (DC Grady Co. PB-2021-43), HAYLEE BLANKENSHIP, as Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of Andrea Lynn Blankenship, deceased (DC Grady Co. PB-2021-43), DELSIE MAY PYE, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Leon W Pye; (DC Grady Co. PB-2022-19) and others
Defendant:
JOHN KEVIN STITT, STATE OF OKLAHOMA, EX REL. OKLAHOMA PARDON AND PAROLE BOARD, ADAM LUCK, individually and as former Board Member of Pardon and Parole Board and others
Goff v. Crow et al
as 5:2023cv01158
Plaintiff:
Antoine Goff
Defendant:
Scott Crow, Amber Martin, Mark Bowen and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
King v. State of Oklahoma et al
as 5:2023cv01141
Plaintiff:
Carey M King, Tearra King, Deoyon Janae Moore and others
Defendant:
Charles King, Cannady Paries, Deoyonte Moore and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Wonsch v. Crow
as 23-6171
Petitioner / Appellant:
ROBERT V. WONSCH
Respondent / Appellee:
SCOTT CROW
Edwards v. Oklahoma State Reformatory et al
as 5:2023cv00716
Plaintiff:
Leellis Edwards
Defendant:
Oklahoma State Reformatory and Scott Crow
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Goff v. Crow et al
as 5:2023cv00584
Plaintiff:
Antoine Goff
Defendant:
Scott Crow, Amber Martin, Mark Bowen and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Nash v. Crow
as 23-7034
Petitioner / Appellant:
ROGER DANIEL NASH
Respondent / Appellee:
SCOTT CROW, Director
Irving v. Doe et al
as 5:2023cv00329
Plaintiff:
Luke Irving
Defendant:
John Doe, Postmaster General of U.S.A, Scott Crow 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.
