Cases 11 - 20 of 392
Ramirez-Verduzco v. Warden
as 1:2023cv00520
Petitioner:
Jose Luis Ramirez-Verduzco
Respondent:
FCI McDowell Warden and Warden
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Eason v. Bowers
as 2:2023cv02396
Petitioner:
Marcus Lamont Eason
Defendant:
Warden Bowers
Respondent:
Warden of FCI McDowell
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Lyvers v. Rokosky
as 1:2023cv00408
Petitioner:
Kashajuan Lyvers
Respondent:
FCI McDowell Warden Rokosky
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Robles v. McDowell
as 3:2023cv01011
Petitioner:
Lomeli Gomez Robles
Respondent:
Neil McDowell
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Esequiel Garcia v. Neil McDowell, et al
as 23-15587
Petitioner / Appellant:
ESEQUIEL GARCIA
Respondent / Appellee:
NEIL MCDOWELL, Warden and RAYTHEL FISHER, Warden
Miller v. Warden
as 1:2023cv00241
Petitioner:
Barrington Miller
Respondent:
FCI McDowell Warden
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
McDowell v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Baker County)
as 3:2023cv00405
Petitioner:
John Richard McDowell
Respondent:
Secretary, Department of Corrections
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Dwight M. McDowell v. Danny Samuel
as 2:2023cv03192
Petitioner:
Dwight M. McDowell
Respondent:
Danny Samuel
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Christopher McGee v. C. Maruka
as 23-6344
Petitioner / Appellant:
CHRISTOPHER MCGEE
Respondent / Appellee:
WARDEN C. MARUKA, Federal Correctional Institution McDowell
Jose Murillo v. Neil McDowell
as 5:2023cv00441
Petitioner:
Jose Murillo
Respondent:
Neil McDowell
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
