Cases 31 - 40 of 634
MERCADO ROSARIO v. UNDERWOOD
as 3:2023cv00111
Petitioner:
LUIS MERCADO ROSARIO
Defendant:
MICHAEL UNDERWOOD
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Hudson v. City of Memphis et al
as 3:2023cv00591
Plaintiff:
Mateem Malik Hudson
Defendant:
City of Memphis, Tennessee, Inc., CoreCivic Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
MERCADO ROSARIO v. UNDERWOOD et al
as 3:2023cv00102
Petitioner:
LUIS ANTONIO MERCADO ROSARIO
Respondent:
WARDEN MICHAEL UNDERWOOD and COLLETE PETERS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
(PC) Nelson v. Rosario
as 2:2023cv00957
Plaintiff:
James D. Nelson
Defendant:
T. Rosario
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
MERCADO-ROSARIO v. UNDERWOOD
as 3:2023cv00060
Petitioner:
LUIS ANTONIO MERCADO-ROSARIO
Respondent:
WARDEN UNDERWOOD
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv02476
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Pacheco v. Streevel
as 7:2023cv00119
Petitioner:
Misael Rosario Pacheco, Sr.
Respondent:
Warden J.C. Streeval
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Solek v. Pagnoni et al
as 3:2023cv00311
Plaintiff:
Timothy Solek and Tim Solek
Defendant:
Joseph Pagnoni, Mr. Santana, Milna Rosario and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Neal v. Oliver et al
as 4:2023cv00775
Plaintiff:
Paul E Neal
Defendant:
A Oliver, K Rosario, D Sullivan and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
William Gates, Jr. v. Lee County, et al
as 23-10353
Plaintiff / Appellant:
WILLIAM A. GATES, JR.
Defendant / Appellee:
LEE COUNTY, LEE COUNTY COURTHOUSE, LEE COUNTY JAIL and others
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.
