Cases 51 - 60 of 318
Robert Crisostomo v. Ray Ormond, et al
as 16-6846
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ROBERT CRISOSTOMO
Defendant - Appellee:
RAY ORMOND, Warden, LORETTA E. LYNCH, U.S. Attorney General, IAN CONNORS, Inmate Appeals and others
Duane Berry v. Loretta Lynch
as 16-5383
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Duane Letroy Berry
Defendant - Appellee:
Loretta E. Lynch
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2016cv04144
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2016cv09748
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361
Bryan Dickson v. USA, et al
as 16-17284
Plaintiff - Appellant:
BRYAN KERR DICKSON
Defendant - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CHARLES SAMMUELS, Jr., Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, DESIGNATION AND SENTENCE COMPUTATION CENTER, DSCC, Designation Coordinator and others
Mohammed Adnan Umar v. Jeh C. Johnson et al
as 8:2016cv02204
Respondent:
Sandra Hutchens, David Jennings, Jeh C. Johnson and others
Petitioner:
Mohammed Adnan Umar
Asfha v. Lynch et al
as 1:2016cv25185
Petitioner:
Ghirmay Dawit Asfha
Defendant:
Loretta E. Lynch , Jeh Johnson , Marc Moore and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2016cv06410
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361
Bayron Gonzalez v. Loretta Lynch, et al
as 16-4121
Petitioner - Appellant:
BAYRON A. GONZALEZ
Respondent - Appellee:
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General of the United States, BILL PRIM, Present Warden of McHenry County Jail, Woodstock, Illinois, JEFF CHARLES JOHNSON, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2016cv06853
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
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.
