Cases 11 - 20 of 22
LYTTLE v. KANE
as 2:2017cv00200
Respondent:
THOMAS R. KANE
Petitioner:
MELVIN R. LYTTLE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
DAVIS v. KANE
as 2:2017cv00152
Defendant:
BUREAU OF PRISONS and THOMAS R. KANE
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM C. DAVIS
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
LYTTLE v. KANE
as 2:2017cv00153
Defendant:
S. JULIAN and THOMAS R. KANE
Plaintiff:
MELVIN R. LYTTLE
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
DEFFENBAUGH v. KANE
as 2:2017cv00149
Defendant:
BUREAU OF PRISONS, S. JULIAN and THOMAS R. KANE
Plaintiff:
LARRY DEFFENBAUGH
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
HEARD v. KANE
as 2:2017cv00148
Defendant:
BUREAU OF PRISONS, S. JULIAN and THOMAS R. KANE
Plaintiff:
JOHN FLUELLEN HEARD, JR.
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
MOON v. MARBERRY et al
as 2:2014cv00067
Defendant:
R. BASKERVILLE, BEAVER, J. BEIGHLEY and others
Plaintiff:
DARNELL W. MOON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
NEAL v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
as 2:2013cv00188
Defendant:
TERESER A. BANKS, F. TIMOTHY COLEMAN, STEPHEN COPE and others
Plaintiff:
ROBERT DAVID NEAL
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2671 Federal Tort Claims Act
NEAL v. OLIVER et al
as 2:2012cv00298
Defendant:
THOMAS R. KANE, CHARLES L. LOCKETT, AMBER L. NELSON and others
Plaintiff:
ROBERT DAVID NEAL
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 552 Right to Privacy Act
NEAL v. COLEMAN et al
as 2:2012cv00101
Defendant:
TERESER A. BANKS, F. TIMOTHY COLEMAN, CHRISTOPHER A. GREINER and others
Interested Party:
JO ANN BARNHART and LONNIE G. SCHMIDT
Plaintiff:
ROBERT DAVID NEAL
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
MOON v. LOCKETT et al
as 2:2012cv00072
Defendant:
V. BOYER, LIEUTENANT BRACE, HARVEY G. CHURCH and others
Plaintiff:
DARNELL WESLEY MOON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
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.
