Cases 61 - 70 of 134
Clarence D. Schreane v. T. J. Watson
as 20-2464
Respondent:
T. J. WATSON, Warden
Applicant:
CLARENCE D. SCHREANE
WINSTON v. WATSON
as 2:2020cv00403
Petitioner:
KWAN ANDRE WINSTON
Respondent:
THOMAS J. WATSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
MCCLURE v. WATSON et al
as 2:2020cv00371
Plaintiff:
CORNELL WINFREI MCCLURE
Defendant:
T. J. WATSON, UNDERWOOD and MORIN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
HALL v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
as 2:2020cv00370
Defendant:
Bill E Whalen, FNU Sherman, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and others
Plaintiff:
CHARLES MICHAEL HALL
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Dale Hartkemeyer, et al v. William P. Barr, et al
as 20-2262
Defendant / Appellee:
T. J. WATSON, Warden, WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General of the United States and MICHAEL CARVAJAL
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DALE HARTKEMEYER, also known as Seigen and MARK O'KEEFE, Father
DAY v. WATSON
as 2:2020cv00362
Petitioner:
ROGER CHARLES DAY, JR.
Respondent:
T. J. WATSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Daniel Lewis Lee v. William P. Barr, et al
as 20-2256
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DANIEL LEWIS LEE
Defendant / Appellee:
T. J. WATSON, Warden, WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General of the United States and MICHAEL CARVAJAL
Earlene Branch Peterson, et al v. William P. Barr, et al
as 20-2252
Defendant / Appellant:
T. J. WATSON, Warden, MICHAEL CARVAJAL and WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General of the United States
Plaintiff / Appellee:
EARLENE BRANCH PETERSON, KIMMA GUREL and MONICA VEILLETTE
HARTKEMEYER v. BARR et al
as 2:2020cv00336
Plaintiff:
DALE HARTKENEYER, SEIGEN and DALE HARTKEMEYER
Defendant:
T. J. WATSON, WILLIAM P. BARR and MICHAEL CARVAJAL
Intervenor Plaintiff:
KIMMA GUREL, EARLENE PETERSON, MONICA VEILLETTE and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Lorenzo Coben v. T. Watson
as 20-2157
Respondent / Appellee:
T. J. WATSON, Warden
Petitioner / Appellant:
LORENZO LEWIS COBEN
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.
