Cases 1 - 10 of 11
Williams v. Hillhouse et al
as 6:2023cv00298
Defendant:
Chris Tinsley, Derick Choice, Nancy Perryman and others
Plaintiff:
Jay Williams
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Williams v. Hillhouse et al
as 6:2023cv00301
Plaintiff:
Jay Williams
Defendant:
Botie Hillhouse, Unidentified Deputies, Tony Duncan and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Williams v. Hillhouse et al
as 6:2023cv00300
Plaintiff:
Jay Williams
Defendant:
Botie Hillhouse, Unidentified Deputies, Nancy Perryman and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Tinsley v. State of Texas
as 4:2022cv00405
Petitioner:
Michael Shane Tinsley
Respondent:
State of Texas and Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2022cv00090
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
DeLaGarza v. Akwitti et al
as 6:2022cv00020
Plaintiff:
Cesar DeLaGarza
Defendant:
Warden FNU Akwitti, Lt. FNU Rancfer, Mental Health Mental Retardation and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Tinsley v. Withers
as 3:2021cv00064
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Defendant:
Shannon Withers
Plaintiff:
Scott Tinsley
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Krupa v. Tinsley et al
as 3:2017cv03232
Plaintiff:
John D Krupa
Defendant:
Fred Tinsley, William Stephenson, Faith Johnson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2013cv02304
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Warren v. The Estate of Henry Wade et al
as 3:2012cv00938
Plaintiff:
James Anthony Warren
Defendant:
The Estate of Henry Wade, Bill Hill, Faith Simmons and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
