Cases 31 - 40 of 1,905
Burrus v. United States of America
as 1:2024cv00065
Plaintiff:
Ronnie D Burrus
Defendant:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
FURMAN v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 2:2024cv00052
Plaintiff:
REX FURMAN
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2674 Federal Tort Claims Act
GRIFFIN v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al
as 2:2024cv00053
Plaintiff:
JERAMIAH J. GRIFFIN
Defendant:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, FCC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
PITTMAN v. UNITED STATES
as 2:2024cv00042
Petitioner:
STEVEN PITTMAN, JR.
Respondent:
UNITED STATES
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Randle v. The United States of America
as 1:2024cv00046
Plaintiff:
Payne T Randle
Defendant:
The United States of America
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jaquez v. United States of America
as 3:2024cv00120
Plaintiff:
Luis H Jaquez
Defendant:
United States of America
Not Yet Classified:
INDIANA STATE PRISON E-FILE (Court Use Only)
Nieto v. USA
as 2:2024cv00035
Petitioner:
Cowboy
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
GIGURE v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 1:2024cv00114
Petitioner:
TYLER GIGURE
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
Phillips v. USA
as 1:2024cv00023
Petitioner:
Remon D Phillips
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
MCDONOUGH v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 1:2024cv00122
Petitioner:
JOHN MCDONOUGH
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
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.
