Cases 21 - 30 of 62
Graham v. Hatch
as 1:2014cv00524
Petitioner:
Antonio Graham
Respondent:
Timothy Hatch
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
TG et al v. The GEO Group, Inc. et al
as 1:2014cv00054
Plaintiff:
T G , M S , B C and others
Defendant:
Geo Group, Inc., Corizon, Inc., Mark Elliot Walden and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2013cv00892
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Servantez v. Hatch et al
as 1:2013cv00638
Petitioner:
Moises Servantez
Respondent:
Timothy Hatch and Attorney General of the State of New Mexico
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Uecker v. Hatch et al
as 1:2013cv00394
Plaintiff:
Lee W. Uecker
Defendant:
Timothy Hatch and Attorney General of the State of New Mexico
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Gonzales v. Hatch et al
as 1:2013cv00305
Plaintiff:
Nick James Gonzales
Defendant:
Timothy Hatch and Jerry Roark
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
RJ et al v. The GEO Group, Inc. et al
as 1:2013cv00265
Plaintiff:
RJ , RR , BR and others
Defendant:
The GEO Group, Inc. , Corizon, Inc. , Mark Elliot Walden and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act
Dixon v. Hatch et al
as 1:2013cv00148
Petitioner:
Michael Dixon
Respondent:
Timothy Hatch and Attorney General of the State of New Mexico
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Ayala v. Hatch, et al
as 13-2009
Petitioner - Appellant:
GABRIEL AYALA
Respondent - Appellee:
TIMOTHY HATCH, Warden and GARY K. KING, Attorney General for the State of New Mexico
Romero v. Hatch
as 1:2012cv01082
Petitioner:
Estevan Phillip Romero
Respondent:
Timothy Hatch and The Attorney General of the State of New Mexico
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.
