Cases 1 - 10 of 13
Antonio Ortiz v. Shateema Pinckney
as 24-6530
Plaintiff:
ANTONIO MEDRANO ORTIZ
Defendant:
SHATEEMA PINCKNEY, Correctional Officer sued in individual and official capacity, TAMEKA SMITH, Unit-Manager sued in individual and official capacity, REGINA HAMPTON, Disciplinary Hearing Officer sued in individual and official capacity and others
ORTIZ v. PINCKNEY et al
as 1:2024cv00262
Plaintiff:
ANTONIO MEDRANO ORTIZ
Defendant:
SHATEEMA PINCKNEY, TAMEKA SMITH, REGINA HAMPTON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Gondres-Medrano v. Rokosky et al
as 1:2023cv00059
Petitioner:
Maximo H. Gondres-Medrano
Respondent:
Warden Rokosky and Acting Warden Lefever
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Gondres-Medrano v. USA - 2255
as 1:2022cv01281
Petitioner:
Maximo H. Gondres-Medrano
Respondent:
USA - 2255
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
RAMOS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
as 1:2022cv00380
Plaintiff:
MIGUEL ANGEL MEDRANO RAMOS
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT and UNITED STATES CONGRESS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
MEDRANO MACIAS v. USA
as 1:2016cv01360
Petitioner:
JUAN ANTONIO MEDRANO MACIAS
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
MEDRANO-MACIAS v. USA
as 1:2016cv00685
Petitioner:
JUAN ANTONIO MEDRANO-MACIAS
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Medrano v. USA - 2255
as 8:2016cv00684
Petitioner:
Noe Farid Medrano
Respondent:
USA - 2255
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
MEDRANO-MUNOZ v. USA
as 1:2015cv00788
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
JHONY ALEXANDER MEDRANO MUNOZ
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Ortiz v. State of North Carolina
as 5:2011hc02219
Petitioner:
Antonio Medrano Ortiz
Respondent:
State of North Carolina
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
