Cases 61 - 70 of 167
MARTE v. WIGEN et al
as 3:2015cv00056
Petitioner:
EMILIO MARTE
Respondent:
GEORGE WIGEN, GEO GROUPS, INC. and FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
COSTON v. KIRBY et al
as 3:2015cv00013
Plaintiff:
RASHOD D. COSTON
Defendant:
MARK A. KIRBY, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. FEKOS et al
as 2:2015mc00009
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
CHRISTOPHER FEKOS
Garnishee:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, DEPOSIT FUND SYSTEM
SHINER v. KIRBY et al
as 3:2014cv00220
Petitioner:
MARC D. SHINER
Respondent:
MARK A. KIRBY and FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
TSARNAEV v. BUREAU OF PRISONS et al
as 2:2014cv00766
Petitioner:
DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV
Respondent:
BUREAU OF PRISONS and BARACK OBAMA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
KALU v. WIGEN et al
as 3:2014cv00028
Plaintiff:
KALU KALU
Defendant:
GEORGE WIGEN, P. JUSTER, SCOTT BLAKE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
MATTHEWS v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS et al
as 1:2014cv00024
Plaintiff:
DANIEL KEITH MATTHEWS
Defendant:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, CENTRAL MEDICAL REVIEW DIRECTOR, FPC MCKEAN HEALTH SERVICES ADMIN. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
MATTHEWS v. MEEKS et al
as 2:2014cv00009
Petitioner:
DANIEL KEITH MATTHEWS
Respondent:
BOBBY L. MEEKS and BUREAU OF PRISONS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
KALU v. WIGEN et al
as 3:2013cv00274
Plaintiff:
KALU KALU
Defendant:
GEORGE WIGEN, P. JUSTER, SCOTT BLAKE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BANKS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
as 2:2013cv01615
Plaintiff:
FREDERICK BANKS
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, BEN LNU and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
