Cases 1 - 10 of 1,851
Hintze v. Daniels, et al.
as 24-6806
Defendant:
KIRK WIDMAR, Associate Warden of Operations, LCC, BARBARA CEGAVSKE, Secretary of State/Board of Prison Commissioner, Dr. IHAN AZZAM, Medical Officer, Dept. of Health and Human Services, Division of Public and Behavioral Health and others
Plaintiff:
JASON HINTZE
Agustin v. United States of America, et al.
as 24-6815
Defendant:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and SALAZAR, First Name Unknown, Correctional Officer
Plaintiff:
JUSTIN E. AGUSTIN
Smith v. Warden, et al.
as 24-6732
Plaintiff:
WESLEY J. SMITH
Defendant:
WARDEN, Montana State Prison and DOES 1-10
Williams v. Paramo, et al.
as 24-6700
Defendant:
ROBERT FLOREZ, Correctional Counselor- I, EMANUEL FRIJAS, Correctional Counselor- I, F. ARMENTA, Captain at Donovan Prison and others
Plaintiff:
JAMES WILLIAMS
Scott v. Nevada Department of Corrections, et al.
as 24-6591
Defendant:
ROBERT ASHCRAFT, ECF No. 17, MEGHAN SULLIVAN, Added per FAC, ECF No. 19; Dismissed per 20, JOHN HENLEY, ECF No. 17: Added per FAC, ECF No. 19 and others
Plaintiff:
JAMES EDWARD SCOTT, III
Dunigan v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al.
as 24-6612
Defendant:
S. LEWIS, A. MARTINEZ, M. FORDHAM and others
Plaintiff:
KEVIN W. DUNIGAN
Stine v. Howard, et al.
as 24-6606
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Federal Bureau of Prisons, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Agency at USP - Tucson, UNKNOWN TUBBS, Ms. Tubbs, Associate Warden and others
Plaintiff:
MIKEAL GLENN STINE
Laverdure v. Salmonsen
as 24-6555
Petitioner:
JOHN JAMES LAVERDURE
Respondent:
JIM SALMONSEN, Warden, Montana State Prison
Harris v. Montgomery
as 24-6563
Respondent:
WARREN L. MONTGOMERY, As Acting Warden of Calipatria State Prison
Petitioner:
ANDRE TREVONE HARRIS
Ruth v. Warden, Valley State Prison
as 24-6481
Defendant:
WARDEN, VALLEY STATE PRISON
Plaintiff:
EBER G RUTH
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.
