Cases 31 - 40 of 72,210
LYNN v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 4:2024cv00253
Petitioner:
JOHN BUFORD LYNN
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Love v. United States of America
as 1:2024cv00061
Petitioner:
Jerry Dean Love
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
Kheop v. United States of America
as 3:2024cv00368
Plaintiff:
Michael Abdullah Kheop
Defendant:
Edward O. Pearson United States of America
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2271 Federal Tort Claims Act
Lighty v. United State of America
as 9:2024cv00797
Petitioner:
Richard Lighty
Respondent:
United State of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Nash v. USA
as 5:2024cv01074
Petitioner:
Khalil Nash
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
Mack v. United States of America
as 2:2024cv03474
Petitioner:
Darwin Keith Mack, Jr.
Defendant:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Peachey v. United States of America
as 4:2024cv04116
Plaintiff:
Nathan Peachey
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
Martin Jonassen, et al v. Bop, et al
as 24-2139
Plaintiff:
MARTIN JONASSEN and ELIZABETH MARY JONASSEN
Defendant:
BOP, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, MR. PERKINS and others
PONTEFRACT v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 1:2024cv07174
Plaintiff:
CLYDE PONTEFRACT
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Robert Decker v. USA, et al
as 24-2067
Plaintiff:
ROBERT K. DECKER
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and COLETTE S. PETERS, Director of F.B.O.P.
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.
