Cases 1 - 10 of 195
BASTIAN v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
as 1:2024cv01540
Defendant:
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY COORDINATOR, CENTRAL OFFICE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY COORDINATOR, S. HESAO and others
Plaintiff:
CASEY J. BASTIAN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Stelnicki et al v. 3M Company et al
as 1:2024cv05513
Plaintiff:
Dean Kallis, Donna Lichtenstein, Philip Stelnicki and others
Defendant:
Narcote Holding Corporation, Kidde-Fenwal, Inc., Minnesota Mining And Manufacturing, Co.) and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal
Shannon Agofsky v. BOP, et al
as 24-2007
Plaintiff:
SHANNON WAYNE AGOFSKY
Defendant:
ANDRE MATEVOUSIAN, COLETTE S. PETERS, STEVE KALLIS, Warden and others
PARKS v. KALLIS
as 2:2024cv00098
Petitioner:
DARRELL PARKS
Respondent:
S. KALLIS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
SCOTT v. KALLIS et al
as 2:2024cv00089
Plaintiff:
LUKE JOHN SCOTT, SR.
Defendant:
S. KALLIS, WOLF and DIRECTOR OF THE DEPT. OF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
CROSBY v. KALLIS et al
as 2:2024cv00060
Plaintiff:
JEFFREY ROY CROSBY
Defendant:
J. KALLIS, OFFICER JANE DOE, SAJNAJ and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
AGOFSKY v. BUREAU OF PRISONS et al
as 2:2024cv00051
Plaintiff:
SHANNON AGOFSKY
Defendant:
BUREAU OF PRISONS, COLETTE S. PETERS, ANDRE MATEVOUSIAN and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act
GRIFFIN v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al
as 2:2024cv00053
Plaintiff:
JERAMIAH J. GRIFFIN
Defendant:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, FCC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Ewin Martinez v. Steven Kallis
as 24-1190
Petitioner:
EWIN O. MARTINEZ
Respondent:
STEVE KALLIS, Warden
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.
