Cases 121 - 130 of 66,629
Vidal v. King et al
as 3:2024cv01015
Petitioner:
Tommy Ray Vidal
Respondent:
Adam King and Leslie Rachael Jones
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Bello v. Johnson
as 4:2024cv00365
Petitioner:
Olamide Olatayo Bello
Defendant:
Mark Johnson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Shelley v. Warden
as 5:2024cv00063
Petitioner:
Michael Clay Shelley
Respondent:
FCI Texarkana Warden
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Pretel v. Warden
as 5:2024cv00061
Petitioner:
Francisco Valencia Pretel
Respondent:
FCI Texarkana Warden
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Calzada v. Martinez
as 2:2024cv00552
Plaintiff:
Evelio Calzada
Defendant:
Felipe Martinez, Jr
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Brantley v. Lumpkin
as 24-10363
Petitioner:
Ross Thomas Brantley, III
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Smith v. Lumpkin
as 24-10362
Petitioner:
Joseph Leonard Smith, Jr.
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Conley v. Lumpkin
as 4:2024cv00833
Petitioner:
David Ray Conley, III
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Romero-Bonilla v. Ping
as 3:2024cv00129
Plaintiff:
Jose J. Romero Ronilla and Jose J. Romero-Bonilla
Defendant:
Warden L. Ping
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Escobedo v. Warden, TDCJ-CID
as 1:2024cv00092
Petitioner:
Ramiro Escobedo
Respondent:
Warden, TDCJ-CID
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.
