Cases 71 - 80 of 80
Vance v. Central Regional Jail et al
as 3:2009cv00040
Plaintiff:
Joseph Allen Vance, Jr.
Defendant:
Central Regional Jail and Segiman
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Joseph Allen Lepore v. D. Broome et al
as 2:2009cv02493
Petitioner:
Joseph Allen Lepore
Respondent:
D. Broome and Jerry Brown
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jose Robles v. Schriro, et al
as 09-15135
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JOSE JOSEPH ALLEN ROBLES
Defendant - Appellee:
PALOSAARI, Warden, M. SHOTTO, Warden, LOWE, CO III and others
Allen v. Bowersox
as 4:2008cv01235
Petitioner:
Joseph Allen
Respondent:
Michael Bowersox
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Robles, et al v. Schriro, et al
as 08-15372
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JOSE JOSEPH ALLEN ROBLES
Defendant - Appellee:
DORA SCHRIRO, PALOSAARI, M. SHOTTO and others
McLaren v. Quarterman
as 4:2007cv04269
Petitioner:
Joseph Allen McLaren
Respondent:
Nathaniel Quarterman
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Allen v. United States of America
as 5:2007cv01132
Plaintiff:
Joseph Allen
Defendant:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 3114 Motion for Return of Seized Property
Joseph Allen Lepore v. Lonnie Watson
as 2:2007cv06637
Petitioner:
Joseph Allen Lepore
Respondent:
Lonnie Watson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Robles v. Schriro et al
as 4:2007cv00471
Plaintiff:
Jose Joseph Allen Robles
Defendant:
Dora Schriro, Palosaari, M Shotto and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Striegle #160244 v. Michigan Department of Corrections et al
as 1:2007cv00570
Plaintiff:
Joseph Allen Striegle #160244
Defendant:
Michigan Department of Corrections, Patricia L. Caruso, Correctional Medical Services, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
