Cases 41 - 50 of 126
Skinner v. Powers et al
as 9:2021cv00237
Plaintiff:
Anthony Skinner
Defendant:
FCI Ray Brook, Powers and Poyer
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jackson v. Plirer
as 21-968
Petitioner:
Hosea Jackson
Respondent:
Tom Marcelle, Justice of CohoesCity Court, A.U.S.A Robert Sharpe, Bar Roll No302573Northern District of NY Albany and Warden W.S. Plirer, Otisville FCI
Johnson v. FCI Ray Brook, Warden
as 9:2021cv00134
Petitioner:
Mark Johnson
Respondent:
FCI Ray Brook, Warden
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Figueroa v. Lovett
as 9:2020cv01517
Petitioner:
Luis Figueroa
Respondent:
Federal Bureau of Prisons, FCI Ray Brook and Stanley Lovett
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Stegemann v. FCI Ray Brook, Warden
as 9:2020cv01247
Respondent:
FCI Ray Brook, Warden
Petitioner:
Joshua G. Stegemann
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Dickerson v. Fairton FCI
as 3:2020cv00994
Defendant:
Fairton FCI
Plaintiff:
James Dickerson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Walker v. Schult
as 20-2415
Defendant:
Steven Wagner, Associate Warden, FCI Ray Brook, Anne Mary Carter, Associate Warden, FCI Ray Brook, J. L. Norwood, Regional Director and others
Defendant / Appellant:
Jackii Sepanek, Counselor, FCI Ray Brook and Deborah G. Schult, Warden, FCI Ray Brook
Plaintiff / Appellee:
Ellis Walker
Heffley v. FCI Otisville
as 1:2020cv05811
Plaintiff:
Travis Heffley
Defendant:
FCI Otisville
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Reynolds v. Warden of FCI Raybrook
as 20-1321
Respondent / Appellee:
Warden of FCI Raybrook
Petitioner / Appellant:
Thomas Reynolds
Shelton v. The Administration of Parole et al
as 1:2020cv01067
Petitioner:
Joseph K. Shelton
Respondent:
The Administration of Parole and FCI Otisville
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 fd
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.
