Cases 11 - 20 of 34
Vitrano v. Samuels et al
as 5:2015cv00166
Plaintiff:
Thomas Phillip Vitrano
Defendant:
Charles Samuels , Jr., J.F. Caraway, Harrell Watts and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Okpala v. Vasquez et al
as 5:2015cv00040
Plaintiff:
Okey Garry Okpala
Defendant:
FNU Vasquez, FNU Lacy, FNU Edwards and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Vivek Shah v. Charles Samuels, Jr., et al
as 15-1952
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Vivek Shah
Defendant - Appellee:
Charles E. Samuels, Jr., D.S.C.C. Administrator, sued in his official capacity, United States of America and Jose A. Santana, DSCC Administrator (originally named as Doe)
Magluta v. United States Bureau of Prisons et al
as 1:2015cv00318
Plaintiff:
Salvador Magluta
Defendant:
United States Bureau of Prisons, Vanec, Theresa Montoya and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Schwindling v. Samuels et al
as 1:2015cv00049
Petitioner:
George A Schwindling
Respondent:
Charles E Samuels, Frank Lara and Jose A Santana
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Shah v. Samuels et al
as 4:2015cv00046
Plaintiff:
Vivek Shah
Defendant:
Charles E Samuels, Jr, USA and Jose A Santana
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Schwindling v. Samuels et al
as 1:2015cv00025
Plaintiff:
George A Schwindling
Defendant:
Charles E Samuels, Frank Lara and Jose A Santana
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Bruce v. Osagie et al
as 1:2014cv02068
Plaintiff:
Antoine Bruce
Defendant:
John T. Rathman, Alejo Borrero-Hernande, Lee H. Green and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Park v. Coakley et al
as 4:2014cv01537
Plaintiff:
James Park
Defendant:
Joe Coakley, R. Hanson and Jose A Santana
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BAILEY v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS et al
as 1:2014cv00716
Plaintiff:
ARI BAILEY
Defendant:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, JOSE A. SANTANA, IKE C. EICHENLAUB 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.
