Cases 11 - 20 of 46
Banks v. NH State Prison for Men
as 1:2020fp00328
Plaintiff:
James Banks
Defendant:
NH State Prison for Men
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Law et al v.Gingrich et al
as 1:2019cv11866
Respondent:
Opiod Crisis, Newt Gingrich, U.S Department of Justice and others
Petitioner:
Frederick Banks, Nathan Law and David Coke
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Banks v. NH State Prison for Men
as 1:2019cv00103
Undetermined:
NH Attorney General - Notice Only - Habeas (Court Use Only) and NH Department of Corrections - Notice Only - Habeas (Court Use Only)
Petitioner:
James Banks
Respondent:
NH State Prison for Men, Warden
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Banks v. Paris Acid Attack et al
as 1:2017cv11906
Defendant:
Paris Acid Attack, Boston Globe, College Office of International Studies and others
Plaintiff:
Frederick Banks
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2017fp00331
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
BANKS v. SONG et al
as 2:2017cv00277
Plaintiff:
FREDERICK BANKS
Defendant:
SOO SONG, ROBERT CESSAR, MARK R HORNAK and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BANKS v. ROE et al
as 2:2017cv00239
Plaintiff:
FREDERICK BANKS
Defendant:
ADRIAN ROE, MARK R HORNAK, ROBERT CESSAR and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2017fp00256
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Banks v. Forbes et al
as 1:2017cv11049
Petitioner:
Frederick Banks
Respondent:
Kelly Forbes, United States Marshals Service, Mark Hornak and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Banks v. Kotoujian et al
as 1:2017cv10593
Plaintiff:
Roscoe Wayne Banks
Defendant:
Peter Kotoujian, Osvaldo Vidal and Kathy Schultz
Cause Of Action: 42 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.
