Cases 51 - 60 of 102
MCGLOSSEN v. RULE et al
as 2:2023cv00033
Plaintiff:
CHARLES MCGLOSSEN
Defendant:
T. RULE and F.C.I. TERRE HAUTE HEALTH SERVICES
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
SELLS v. RULE et al
as 2:2023cv00026
Petitioner:
JEROMEE SELLS
Respondent:
T. RULE and FCI TERRE HAUTE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
GILMORE v. RULE
as 2:2023cv00002
Petitioner:
MICHAEL L. GILMORE, JR.
Respondent:
RULE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
WILLIAMS v. RULE
as 2:2022cv00594
Petitioner:
MICHAEL WILLIAMS
Respondent:
T. RULE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
MCFARLAND v. RULE
as 2:2022cv00590
Petitioner:
RICKY MCFARLAND
Respondent:
T. RULE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
GOTTESFELD v. RULE
as 2:2022cv00571
Defendant:
T. RULE
Petitioner:
MARTIN GOTTESFELD
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
CRAIG, KELLY & FAULTLESS, LLC v. TURNER, SCOTT et al
as 1:2022cv02328
Plaintiff:
CRAIG, KELLY & FAULTLESS, LLC
Defendant:
TURNER, SCOTT, HENDRICKS COUNTY HOSPITAL, d/b/a, HENDRICKS REGIONAL HEALTH, RECEIVABLES MNGT. PARTNERS, LLC, ASSIGNEE HENDRICKS CO. HOSP. d/b/a, ORTHOPEDIC SPORT MED. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442 Petition for Removal
FISK v. RULE
as 2:2022cv00545
Petitioner:
JIMMY TYRONE FISK
Respondent:
T. RULE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
ALVAREZ v. RULE
as 2:2022cv00502
Plaintiff:
EDUARDO ALVAREZ
Defendant:
RULE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
LIMON v. KALLIS et al
as 2:2022cv00500
Petitioner:
JUAN LIMON
Respondent:
S. KALLIS and T. RULE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
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.
