Cases 161 - 170 of 616
BUZZFEED INC. v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al
as 1:2018cv01556
Plaintiff:
BUZZFEED INC.
Defendant:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 552
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
SMITH v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
as 1:2018cv01102
Plaintiff:
GARY LEE SMITH
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, MARK S. INCH and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DUNCAN v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
as 1:2018cv01024
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL A. DUNCAN
Defendant:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
JOHNSON v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
as 1:2018cv01025
Plaintiff:
ALAN WADE JOHNSON
Defendant:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 552
VITRANO v. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL et al
as 1:2018cv00860
Plaintiff:
THOMAS P. VITRANO
Defendant:
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BOBKA v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
as 1:2018cv00873
Plaintiff:
RICHARD J. BOBKA
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ROD ROSENSTEIN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DHAFIR v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS et al
as 1:2018cv00713
Petitioner:
RAFIL DHAFIR
Respondent:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, THOMAS R. KANE and JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651
ANDERSON v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
as 1:2018cv00617
Plaintiff:
MELVIN ANDERSON
Defendant:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 552
HAWK v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
as 1:2018cv00519
Plaintiff:
SAMUEL HAWK
Defendant:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 0504
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.
