Cases 121 - 130 of 72,445
Hinkson v. United States of America
as 1:2024cv03595
Petitioner:
Owen Garth Hinkson
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
Adams v. United States of America et al
as 1:2024cv01283
Petitioner:
Cristin Adams
Respondent:
United States of America, Warden and Federal Bureau of Prisons
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Mukanzu v. United States of America
as 4:2024cv00277
Petitioner:
Kachimbe Mukanzu
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
Anderson v. United States of America
as 4:2024cv00278
Petitioner:
Adam Michael Anderson
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
Brandon v. United States of America
as 4:2024cv00279
Petitioner:
Myron Lee Brandon
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
Gray v. USA
as 2:2024cv12119
Petitioner:
Tyjuan Devon Gray
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2024hc02145
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 4241 Motion to Determine Mental Competency/Other Dist.
Pitts v. United States of America
as 4:2024cv00772
Plaintiff:
Andrew Pitts
Defendant:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Martinez v. United States of America
as 2:2024cv01269
Petitioner:
Victor Martinez
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
Richard Schmeling v. USA
as 24-1671
Petitioner:
RICHARD DONALD SCHMELING
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
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.
