District of Columbia Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 21 - 30 of 315
ROBINSON v. D.C. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
as 1:2019cv01372
Plaintiff:
IVAN L. ROBINSON
Defendant:
STEWART, HULL, D.C. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BUTT v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al
as 1:2019cv00504
Defendant:
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS AT WASHINGTON, D.C., OFFICE OF INFORMATION POLICY and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Plaintiff:
BABAR JAVED BUTT
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 552
WARDRICK v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
as 1:2019cv00184
Defendant:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
Plaintiff:
DONALD WARDRICK
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
FALICE v. O'BRIEN
as 1:2018cv02946
Defendant:
JOHN O'BRIEN
Plaintiff:
REGINALD A. FALICE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
BAILEY v. STATE OF MARYLAND et al
as 1:2018cv03025
Plaintiff:
THOMAS L. BAILEY
Defendant:
STATE OF MARYLAND and KELLY A. GENTRY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
LEONE v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE et al
as 1:2018cv01807
Defendant:
GIACOMO R. LEONE, Assistant Attorney G STATE OF TEXAS, TRAVIS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT and others
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER GOLIATH LEONE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
MOTTON v. BUREAU OF PRISONS et al
as 1:2018cv01693
Plaintiff:
CHARLES MOTTON, II and CHARLES MOTTON, III
Defendant:
BUREAU OF PRISONS, ERIC WOOTEN, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SMITH v. JOHNSON
as 1:2018cv01471
Plaintiff:
LARRY LEE SMITH
Defendant:
MICHAEL JOHNSON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
GILLIAM v. NICKS
as 1:2018cv01306
Plaintiff:
DEANGELO GILLIAM
Defendant:
MARVIN NICKS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BURMAN v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS DIRECTOR et al
as 1:2018cv01098
Plaintiff:
ALLAH BURMAN
Defendant:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS DIRECTOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, NORMAN WEIDLICH and others
Cause Of Action: 28 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.
