Cases 31 - 40 of 83
PODHORN v. GRONDOLSKY
as 1:2009cv02531
Petitioner:
PAUL E. PODHORN, JR.
Respondent:
J. GRONDOLSKY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
FUTCH v. GRONDOLSKY
as 1:2009cv02530
Petitioner:
JOHN RANDALL FUTCH
Respondent:
J. GRONDOLSKY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
NEAGLE v. GRONDOLSKY
as 1:2009cv02016
Petitioner:
CHRISTOPHER J. NEAGLE
Respondent:
J. GRONDOLSKY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
JACKSON v. LAPPIN et al
as 1:2009cv01649
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL JACKSON
Defendant:
H. LAPPIN, J. GRONDOLSKY, N. NICHOLS and others
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
JUNKERT v. LAPPIN et al
as 1:2009cv01647
Plaintiff:
TIMOTHY JUNKERT
Defendant:
H. LAPPIN, J. GRONDOLSKY, N. NICHOLS and others
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
BURHYTE v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS et al
as 1:2009cv01648
Plaintiff:
SCOTT BURHYTE
Defendant:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, H. LAPPIN, J. GRONDOLSKY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
EICKLEBERRY et al v. LAPPIN et al
as 1:2009cv01556
Plaintiff:
CHARLES EICKLEBERRY, TIMOTHY JUNKERT, SCOTT BURHYTE and others
Defendant:
H. LAPPIN, J. GRONDOLSKY, N. NICHOLS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
VAZQUEZ v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS et al
as 1:2009cv01440
Petitioner:
BENJAMIN VAZQUEZ
Respondent:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, J. GRONDOLSKY and HARLEY G. LAPPIN
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
SANTOS v. GRONDOLSKY
as 1:2009cv01285
Petitioner:
FREDDY DELOS SANTOS
Respondent:
J. GRONDOLSKY
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
TORRES-BONILLA v. LAPPIN et al
as 1:2009cv01226
Petitioner:
OMAR TORRES-BONILLA
Respondent:
HARLY G. LAPPIN and J. GRONDOLSKY
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.
