Cases 11 - 20 of 230
Lambert v. Warden FCI Pekin
as 1:2024cv01100
Petitioner:
Mario Lambert
Respondent:
Warden FCI Pekin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Yefferson v. Warden FCI Oxford
as 3:2024cv00093
Petitioner:
Juan Luis Yefferson
Respondent:
Warden FCI Oxford
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Monroe v. FCI Terre Haute
as 3:2024cv00157
Plaintiff:
Joseph Monroe
Defendant:
FCI Terre Haute
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Yefferson v. Warden FCI Oxford
as 2:2024cv00047
Petitioner:
Juan Luis Yefferson
Respondent:
Warden FCI Oxford
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Nelsrud v. Warden of Pekin FCI
as 1:2023cv01460
Petitioner:
Kelly Jo Nelsrud
Respondent:
Warden of Pekin FCI
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Carrillo et al v. Brendan Mortgage, Incorporated et al
as 1:2023cv16613
Plaintiff:
Emilio Carrillo and Michelle Ann Carrillo
Defendant:
Brendan Mortgage, Incorporated doing business as Brendan Financial, Scott Robert Barfuss, Father & Sons Home Improvement II, Incorporated and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1640 Truth in Lending
Belton v. USA
as 1:2023cv01370
Petitioner:
Emanucel Belton
Respondent:
USA and Warden FCI Pekin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Magwood, Earl v. Keyes
as 3:2023cv00665
Petitioner:
Earl C. Magwood
Respondent:
FCI Warden Keyes
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Ashley, Tyshown v. Keyes, Warden
as 3:2023cv00646
Petitioner:
Tyshown R. Ashley
Respondent:
FCI Warden Keyes
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
GENOVESE v. WARDEN FCI TERRE HAUTE
as 2:2023cv00455
Petitioner:
NICHOLAS GENOVESE
Respondent:
WARDEN FCI TERRE HAUTE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
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.
