Cases 61 - 70 of 112
Larry Norris v. Michael Growse, et al
as 11-6227
Plaintiff - Appellant:
LARRY NORRIS
Defendant - Appellee:
MICHAEL GROWSE, MARIA MARRERO, Individually, QUENTIN E. MOORE, Individually and others
Michael Modena v. USA, et al
as 11-1974
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MICHAEL J. MODENA
Defendant - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DONALD A. DAVIS, HAGEN W. FRANK and others
Walter Himmelreich v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, et al
as 11-3474
Plaintiff - Appellant:
WALTER J. HIMMELREICH
Defendant - Appellee:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al.
Keith Judd v. Harley Lappin, et al
as 10-4611
Petitioner - Appellant:
KEITH RUSSELL JUDD
Respondent - Appellee:
HARLEY G. LAPPIN, Director, Director, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW MEXICO, et al.
Keith Judd v. Harley Lappin, et al
as 10-4610
Petitioner - Appellant:
KEITH RUSSELL JUDD
Respondent - Appellee:
HARLEY G. LAPPIN, Director, Director, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW MEXICO, et al.
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 10-6524
Petitioner - Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Patrick Jones v. M. Daniels, et al
as 10-6408
Plaintiff - Appellant:
PATRICK A. JONES
Defendant - Appellee:
M. DANIELS, KITCHENS, T. DOOLIN and others
Keith Judd v. Harley Lappin, et al
as 10-4375
Petitioner - Appellant:
KEITH RUSSELL JUDD
Respondent - Appellee:
HARLEY G. LAPPIN, Director, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW MEXICO, et al.
Keith Judd v. Harley Lappin, et al
as 10-4377
Petitioner - Appellant:
KEITH RUSSELL JUDD
Respondent - Appellee:
HARLEY G. LAPPIN, Director, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW MEXICO, et al.
Keith Judd v. Harley Lappin, et al
as 10-4374
Petitioner - Appellant:
KEITH RUSSELL JUDD
Respondent - Appellee:
HARLEY G. LAPPIN, Director, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW MEXICO, et al.
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.
