Cases 1 - 10 of 45
Kenneth Mobley v. DOJ, et al
as 24-5477
Plaintiff:
KENNETH MOBLEY
Defendant:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF PRISONS, WARDEN F. J. BOWERS, FCI Memphis and others
Anthony Stokes v. Merrick Garland, et al
as 24-5034
Petitioner:
ANTHONY DARNELL STOKES
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. Attorney General, GARY SWANEY, Warden, FCI Manchester and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 23-6123
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Scott, Jr. v. U.S. Department of Justice, et al.
as 1:2023cv02246
Plaintiff:
Clinton Robert Scott, Jr.
Defendant:
U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Agency Administration and APA
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Medved v. U.S. Department of Justice et al
as 4:2023cv01752
Plaintiff:
John Edward Medved
Defendant:
U.S. Department of Justice, US Parole Commission and 6th Circuit Court of Appeals
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Dijon Dixon v. Eric Erwin, et al
as 23-5377
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DIJON T. DIXON
Defendant / Appellee:
ERIC A. ERWIN, Assistant Warden, UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY AT BIG SANDY, HECTOR JOYNER, Warden and others
Parker v. U.S. Department of Justice
as 0:2022cv00095
Plaintiff:
Ruffin Parker
Defendant:
U.S. Department of Justice
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Parker v. U.S. Department of Justice et al
as 0:2022cv00074
Plaintiff:
Ruffin Parker
Defendant:
U.S. Department of Justice and Bureau of Prisons
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Parker v. U.S. Department of Justice et al
as 2:2022cv12078
Plaintiff:
Ruffin Parker
Defendant:
U.S. Department of Justice and Bureau of Prisons
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2022cv11782
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Consolidated Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
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.
