US District Court for the District of Minnesota Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 1 - 10 of 2,890
Moreno v. Eischen
as 0:2025cv00209
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Chaney v. Beltz et al
as 0:2025cv00211
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Ivy v. Bolin
as 0:2025cv00208
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Brown v. Eischen
as 0:2025cv00171
Respondent:
B. Eischen
Petitioner:
Steven Dejuan Brown
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Gallop v. Bureau of Prisons et al
as 0:2025cv00159
Respondent:
Segal and Bureau of Prisons
Petitioner:
Teresa Gallop
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
LaBelle v. Warden MCF Rush City
as 0:2025cv00160
Respondent:
Warden MCF Rush City
Petitioner:
Jordan K LaBelle
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Konigsmark v. Warden of FCI Sandstone
as 0:2025cv00162
Respondent:
Warden of FCI Sandstone
Petitioner:
Tyler Konigsmark
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Giffen v. Warden of Federal Medical Center Rochester et al
as 0:2025cv00167
Respondent:
United States Attorney General, United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina and Warden of Federal Medical Center Rochester
Petitioner:
Todd Giffen
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Ballard v. Davis
as 0:2025cv00145
Petitioner:
Valerie A. Ballard
Respondent:
L.S. Davis
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Giffen v. Warden Federal Medical Center Rochester
as 0:2025cv00086
Petitioner:
Todd Giffen
Respondent:
Warden Federal Medical Center Rochester
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
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.
