Cases 11 - 20 of 42
Edward Johnson, III v. Jefferson Sessions, III, et al
as 17-2826
Plaintiff - Appellant:
EDWARD JOHNSON, III
Defendant - Appellee:
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General of the United States, DAVID HARLOW and THOMAS R. KANE
Hammonds v. Ross et al
as 2:2017cv02363
Plaintiff:
Carlton Leon Hammonds, Jr
Defendant:
C Ross, E Slater, Regional Director Federal Bureau of Prisons and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
HAUKE v. KANE
as 2:2017cv00418
Defendant:
BUREAU OF PRISONS and THOMAS R. KANE
Plaintiff:
KEENAN R. HAUKE
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
SMOOT v. BUREAU OF PRISONS et al
as 2:2017cv00358
Defendant:
BUREAU OF PRISONS, THOMAS R. KANE, KRUGER and others
Plaintiff:
DONALD SMOOT
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
Smith v. Kane et al
as 2:2017cv02472
Plaintiff:
Timothy Smith
Defendant:
Thomas R Kane, J Velasquez, K Tracy and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Ray v. United States of America et al
as 4:2017cv00558
Plaintiff:
Carole Ray
Defendant:
United States of America, Thomas R. Kane, Nurse Garcia and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
PEARSON v. BUREAU OF PRISONS et al
as 2:2017cv00281
Defendant:
BUREAU OF PRISONS and THOMAS R. KANE
Plaintiff:
ROBERT PEARSON
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
Clark v. Watson et al
as 1:2017cv01231
Plaintiff:
Bradley Scott Clark, Sr
Defendant:
Thomas Watson, Jeffrey Rendon, Sara M Revell and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
MELENDEZ v. JULIAN et al
as 2:2017cv00202
Respondent:
BUREAU OF PRISONS, S. JULIAN and THOMAS R. KANE
Petitioner:
ALEX A. MELENDEZ
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
Hannigan v. Kane et al
as 2:2017cv00162
Plaintiff:
Christopher Matthew Hannigan
Defendant:
Thomas R. Kane, J.F. Caraway, Eric D. Wilson and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
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.
