U.S. District Court for the District of Maine Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 41 - 50 of 1,313
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv00295
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
BOULIER v. PENOBSCOT COUNTY JAIL
as 1:2024cv00284
Respondent:
PENOBSCOT COUNTY JAIL
Petitioner:
WAYNE E BOULIER, II
Unknown:
MAINE ATTORNEY GENERAL - HABEAS CASES
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
CONGO v. USA
as 2:2024cv00283
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
ABOUBACAR CONGO
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
WEDDLE v. DEGNER
as 2:2024cv00280
Unknown:
MAINE ATTORNEY GENERAL - HABEAS CASES
Plaintiff:
RANDALL WEDDLE
Respondent:
ANTHONY DEGNER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
ROSS v. WALKER et al
as 1:2024cv00277
Defendant:
JOHN C NIVISON, BRYCE TORRENSON, ANDREW MCCORMACK and others
Plaintiff:
KEVIN LEE ROSS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
GOGUEN v. USA
as 1:2024cv00273
Petitioner:
ROBERT GOGUEN
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
BARDEN v. BLAUVELT et al
as 1:2024cv00264
Defendant:
DOUG BLAUVELT, FRANKLIN COUNTY DETENTION CENTER and JOHN COLEMAN
Plaintiff:
ELLIOTT L BARDEN, JR
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
GURNEY v. JOYCE
as 2:2024cv00262
Plaintiff:
STEPHEN C GURNEY
Defendant:
KEVIN J JOYCE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
BOULIER v. BLAUVELT et al
as 1:2024cv00250
Plaintiff:
WAYNE E BOULIER, II
Defendant:
DOUG BLAUVELT and FRANKLIN COUNTY JAIL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
ROSS v. ROSS et al
as 1:2024cv00244
Plaintiff:
KEVIN LEE ROSS
Defendant:
MIKE LEE ROSS and SCOTT LEE ROSS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
