Cases 11 - 20 of 23
Moshir v. United States Postal Service et al
as 4:2017cv01460
Plaintiff:
Ali Moshir
Defendant:
United States Postal Service, Government, NEOCC and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Moshir v. Minehart et al
as 4:2017cv01458
Plaintiff:
Ali Moshir
Defendant:
Minehart, Warden, NEOCC and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Moshir v. Valentine et al
as 4:2017cv01459
Plaintiff:
Ali Moshir
Defendant:
Valentine, NEOCC, CCA/Core Civic and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Moshir v. Sullivan et al
as 4:2017cv01317
Plaintiff:
Ali Moshir
Defendant:
Sgt. Sullivan, Northeast Ohio Correctional Center, Corrections Corporation of America and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Moshir v. NEOCC et al
as 4:2017cv01106
Plaintiff:
Ali Moshir
Defendant:
NEOCC, USMS, Core Civic and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
USM Holdings Inc. v. Simon et al
as 2:2015cv14251
Plaintiff:
USM Holdings Inc.
Defendant:
Brian A. Simon, Mark J. Roll, Eric A. Simon and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 78
Nesler v. WTDF et al
as 2:2015cv02348
Plaintiff:
John J. Nesler
Defendant:
WTDF, CCA and USMS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ronald Davis v. Eric Holder, Jr., et al
as 13-6471
Plaintiff - Appellant:
RONALD L. DAVIS
Defendant - Appellee:
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, individual capacity, JOHN CLARK, the former Director of the United States Marshal's Service ("USMS"), individual capacity and HARLEY G. LAPPIN, Director, the former Director of the BOP, individual capacity
Cope v. Donahue et al
as 2:2012cv02876
Petitioner:
Terry Wayne Cope
Respondent:
Michael Donahue and The USMS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Pampley v. U.S. Dept. of Justice et al
as 2:2011cv02814
Petitioner:
Deloris Pampley
Respondent:
U.S. Dept. of Justice, USMS, Grenada City Jail and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
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.
