Cases 1 - 10 of 5,304
Buffington #338170 v. Thornell et al
as 3:2025cv08127
Petitioner:
Charles Ray'Shon Buffington
Respondent:
Ryan Thornell and Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Odom v. Shinn, et al.
as 25-3809
Petitioner:
THOMAS J. ODOM
Respondent:
DAVID SHINN and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Solan v. State of Arizona, et al.
as 25-3769
Plaintiff:
MATTHEW PHILLIP SOLAN
Defendant:
STATE OF ARIZONA, MICHAEL R. SHELDON, JENNIFER L. CUNICO and others
Eisenmann v. Thornell, et al.
as 25-3713
Petitioner:
GARY LANE EISENMANN, named as Gary Eisenmann and Gary L Eisenmann
Respondent:
RYAN THORNELL, DIRECTOR OF THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, REHABILITATION and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Espada #324472 v. Attorney General of the State of Arizona
as 2:2025cv02048
Petitioner:
Francisco Espada, Jr.
Respondent:
Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Ochoa #155345 v. Thornell et al
as 2:2025cv01975
Petitioner:
Arthur Antonio Ochoa
Respondent:
Ryan Thornell and Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
McGill v. Shinn, et al.
as 25-3593
Petitioner:
JIMMY LASHAWN MCGILL
Respondent:
DAVID SHINN, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Myers #109105 v. Thornell et al
as 2:2025cv01961
Petitioner:
Rodney Dan Myers
Respondent:
Ryan Thornell and Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Rutledge #142462 v. Thornell et al
as 2:2025cv01947
Petitioner:
Jermaine Lamar Rutledge
Respondent:
Ryan Thornell and Attorney General of the State of Arizona
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.
