Cases 41 - 50 of 231
Kamal Patel v. Janet Napolitano
as 11-6386
Plaintiff - Appellant:
KAMAL PATEL, a/k/a Kamalbhai Kanti Patel
Defendant - Appellee:
JANET NAPOLITANO, JONATHAN R. SCHARFEN, ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. and others
Monroe v. Marshall et al
as 7:2011cv00122
Defendant:
Stephen U. Baer, Margret McLeod Cain, Hillary Clinton and others
Plaintiff:
Joseph E. Monroe
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
La'Ron Marshall v. Harley Lappin
as 11-6288
Plaintiff - Appellant:
LA'RON MARSHALL
Defendant - Appellee:
HARLEY LAPPIN, Director of the BOP, K. M. WHITE, Mid-Atlantic Regional Dir., JAMES CROSS, Warden USP Hazelton and others
Holmes v. Federal Bureau of Prison et al
as 2:2011cv00287
Plaintiff:
Anthony L Holmes
Defendant:
Harvey G Lappin, Darlene Drew, Tovia Thomas and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Matherly v. Johns et al
as 5:2011ct03020
Plaintiff:
Thomas Shane Matherly
Defendant:
Tracy W. Johns, Deborah A. Gonzales, Candice Gregory and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Grebe v. Revell et al
as 5:2011hc02010
Petitioner:
Jack Abbott Grebe, Jr.
Respondent:
Sara Revell and Harley G. Lappin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Michael Nolan v. Matthew Hamidullah
as 11-6070
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MICHAEL NOLAN
Defendant - Appellee:
MATTHEW B. HAMIDULLAH, KATHRYN MACK, RAY HOLT and others
Eduardo Benavides v. Mary Mitchell
as 11-6012
Petitioner - Appellant:
EDUARDO BENAVIDES
Respondent - Appellee:
MARY MITCHELL, Warden
Respondent:
HARLEY LAPPIN, Director for Bureau of Prisons
Thomas v. Lappin et al
as 2:2010cv03271
Plaintiff:
Mark A Thomas
Defendant:
Harold Lappin, MM Mitchell and Rosario Fuerte
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Trevis Caldwell v. Harley Lappin
as 10-7758
Plaintiff - Appellant:
TREVIS PAUL CALDWELL
Defendant - Appellee:
HARLEY G. LAPPIN, B.O.P. Director, WARDEN CROSS, JOE DRIVER, former Warden, USP Hazelton and others
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.
