US District Court for the Western District of Tennessee Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 91 - 100 of 1,514
Ibrihim v. United States of America
as 2:2022cv02214
Petitioner:
Siraj Ibrihim and Robert Crain
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
Faulcon v. United States of America
as 1:2022cv01059
Petitioner:
Christopher Faulcon
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
Joyner v. United States of America
as 2:2022cv02192
Petitioner:
Charles Lee Joyner
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
Coleman v. United States of America
as 2:2022cv02193
Petitioner:
Frederick Coleman
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
Chandler v. United States of America
as 2:2022cv02187
Petitioner:
Arthur Chandler
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
Benson v. United States of America
as 2:2022cv02096
Petitioner:
Anthony Benson
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Via v. United States of America
as 1:2022cv01028
Petitioner:
Dustin Blake Via
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
Fitts v. United States of America
as 1:2022cv01021
Petitioner:
Randy Tyrice Fitts
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Thacker v. United States of America
as 2:2022cv02024
Petitioner:
Michael Thacker
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Clancy v. United States of America
as 2:2022cv02012
Plaintiff:
Lamar Clancy
Defendant:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
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.
