Cases 71 - 80 of 1,826
Hernandez v. Bureau of Prisons (BOP) et al
as 3:2022cv00725
Plaintiff:
Pedro Perez Hernandez
Defendant:
Bureau of Prisons (BOP)
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Gozo v. Attorney General et al
as 1:2022cv00573
Plaintiff:
Makusha Gozo
Defendant:
Attorney General, Federal Bureau of Prisons, FCI Beaumont and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Pitts v. Bureau Of Prisons
as 9:2022cv00200
Plaintiff:
Shannon Thomas Pitts
Defendant:
Bureau Of Prisons
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Carter v. Bureau of Prisons et al
as 3:2023cv00021
Plaintiff:
Daryle Bernard Carter
Defendant:
Bureau of Prisons and Unknown Cooper
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Pitts v. Bureau Of Prisons
as 6:2023cv00021
Plaintiff:
Shannon Pitts
Defendant:
Bureau Of Prisons
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2674 Federal Tort Claims Act
Smith v. Fed Bur of Prisons
as 22-51009
Petitioner / Appellant:
Aaron S. Smith
Respondent / Appellee:
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Norman v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
as 4:2022cv01041
Plaintiff:
Alexis C Norman
Defendant:
Federal Bureau of Prisons, Michael Smith and United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Tort Action
Pitts v. Bureau of Prison et al
as 4:2022cv01127
Plaintiff:
Shannon Pitts
Defendant:
Officer FNU Derry, FNU Cates and Bureau of Prison
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Pitts v. Bureau Of Prisons
as 5:2022cv01390
Plaintiff:
Shannon Pitts
Defendant:
Bureau Of Prisons
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2674 Federal Tort Claims Act
Pitts v. Bureau of Prisons et al
as 4:2022cv04432
Plaintiff:
Shannon Thomas Pitts
Defendant:
Bureau of Prisons, Officer Derry and FCI Seagoville
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
