Cases 21 - 30 of 30
SOLIS v. BELL
as 2:2018cv00113
Respondent:
J.R. BELL
Petitioner:
JUAN SOLIS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
VARELLAS v. BELL
as 2:2018cv00014
Respondent:
J.R. BELL
Petitioner:
WILLIAM J. VARELLAS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
RELIFORD v. BELL
as 2:2017cv00562
Respondent:
J.R. BELL
Petitioner:
ROCKY L. RELIFORD
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
RENDELMAN v. BELL
as 2:2017cv00533
Respondent:
J.R. BELL
Petitioner:
SCOTT LEWIS RENDELMAN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
DISCH v. BELL
as 2:2017cv00522
Respondent:
J.R. BELL
Petitioner:
MICHAEL F. DISCH
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
JONES v. J.R. CARAWAY et al
as 2:2014cv00319
Defendant:
JOHN DOE, JOHN DOE, J.R. CARAWAY and others
Plaintiff:
ANDRE JONES
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
YOUNG v. DALLAS et al
as 1:2013cv00731
Defendant:
MS ANGEL, EDDIE BUSS, DR COCKERELL and others
Plaintiff:
JOHN G. YOUNG
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
J.R. et al v. CARTER et al
as 1:2011cv00212
Defendant:
DAVID CARTER, SCOTT KOSIELAK, SHAWN ROMERIL and others
Plaintiff:
J.R. and SHAWNA REED-HAYES
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
MCCLESKEY et al v. J.R. CONCRETE PROFESSIONALS, INC.
as 1:2008cv01381
Plaintiff:
MARK MCCLESKEY and INDIANA STATE COUNCIL OF PLASTERERS AND CEMENT MASONS HEALTH AND WELFARE AND PENSION FUNDS
Defendant:
J.R. CONCRETE PROFESSIONALS, INC.
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
JANIS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
as 2:2007cv00090
Plaintiff:
GUST MARION JANIS
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ALBERTO GONZALEZ and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
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.
