Cases 71 - 80 of 105
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 17-2653
Plaintiff - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
In re: Christopher Alipui
as 16-3214
Plaintiff - Petitioner:
In re: CHRISTOPHER KUDJO ALIPUI
Defendant - Respondent:
ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SECRETARY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT and others
Nominal Respondent:
RICHARD P. CONABOY
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 16-3134
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 16-3008
Plaintiff - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
E.D. v. SHARKEY et al
as 5:2016cv02750
Plaintiff:
E.D.
Defendant:
DANIEL SHARKEY, BERKS COUNTY RESIDENTIAL CENTER-IMMIGRATION FAMILY CENTER (BCRC-IFC), COUNTY OF BERKS, PENNSYLVANIA and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2015cv02088
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2015cv06540
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 14-1402
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Arturo Vasquez-Salas v. Attorney General United State
as 13-4145
Petitioner:
ARTURO VASQUEZ-SALAS
Respondent:
ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
:
SECRETARY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY and ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2013cv04331
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
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.
