Fifth Circuit Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 1 - 10 of 165,347
Dowles v. Dauzat
as 5:2024cv00652
Plaintiff:
Desi Lamont Dowles, Jr
Defendant:
Michele Dauzat
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Robertson v. United States of America
as 3:2024cv00275
Petitioner:
Kenneth Rashaad Robertson
Respondent:
Edward O. Pearson United States of America
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Hollon v. State of Mississippi
as 1:2024cv00148
Plaintiff:
Joshua David Hollon
Defendant:
State of Mississippi
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Alvarez v. Lumpkin et al
as 1:2024cv00181
Plaintiff:
Edwing Ahmed Alvarez
Defendant:
Bobby Lumpkin, Timothy Fitzpatrick, Angela N Chevalier and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Lewis-Bey v. Cox
as 1:2024cv00651
Plaintiff:
Carlos Devon Lewis-Bey
Defendant:
J W Cox
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Thompson v. Cain et al
as 1:2024cv00091
Petitioner:
Dennis Thompson
Respondent:
Burl Cain and Lynn Fitch
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Martinez-Pujol v. Humphrey
as 1:2024cv00073
Petitioner:
Yetmis Martinez-Pujol
Respondent:
C Humphrey
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Hamilton v. Rule
as 4:2024cv00449
Petitioner:
Brenda Hamilton
Respondent:
Warden FNU Rule
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Portillo v. Lubbock County Sheriff
as 5:2024cv00119
Petitioner:
Lee Portillo
Respondent:
Lubbock County Sheriff
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2024cv00450
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
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.
