Cases 71 - 80 of 2,584
BREWSTER v. COUNTRYMAN
as 4:2023cv00174
Petitioner:
GEORGE WALTER BREWSTER, III
Respondent:
Sheriff GREG COUNTRYMAN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
WILLIAMS v. MCMILLEN
as 1:2023cv00176
Petitioner:
MICHAEL JEROME WILLIAMS
Respondent:
MCMILLEN and WARDEN MCMILLIAN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
OBEGINSKI v. STATE OF GEORGIA
as 1:2023cv00154
Petitioner:
AARON OBEGINSKI
Respondent:
STATE OF GEORGIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
LEE v. REED et al
as 5:2023cv00314
Petitioner:
JAI DEVON LEE
Respondent:
AMANDA REED, DONALD CONEWAY, SR and JOHN AND OR JANE DOES
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
TOOMER v. ADAMS
as 1:2023cv00119
Petitioner:
KASAEM BERNARD TOOMER
Respondent:
TYRONE OLIVER and Warden ROBERT ADAMS, JR
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
PERSON v. STATE OF GEORGIA
as 5:2023cv00253
Petitioner:
EDWARD PERSON
Respondent:
STATE OF GEORGIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
PERSON v. STATE OF GEORGIA
as 5:2023cv00299
Petitioner:
EDWARD PERSON
Respondent:
STATE OF GEORGIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
BREWSTER v. COUNTRYMAN
as 4:2023cv00132
Petitioner:
GEORGE WALTER BREWSTER, III
Respondent:
Sheriff GREG COUNTRYMAN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
EDWARDS v. GILLIS
as 7:2023cv00082
Petitioner:
PHIRRONNIUS EDWARDS
Respondent:
Warden SHAWN GILLIS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
BARBER v. TELFAIR STATE PRISON
as 1:2023cv00122
Petitioner:
DANIEL BARBER
Respondent:
TELFAIR STATE PRISON
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.
