Cases 61 - 70 of 178
Darron Lee v. Isaac Fulwood, Jr.
as 12-5226
Petitioner - Appellant:
Darron K. Lee
Respondent - Appellee:
Isaac Fulwood, Jr.
Black v. Johns et al
as 5:2012hc02157
Petitioner:
John Black
Respondent:
Tracy W. Johns, Isaac Fulwood, Cranston J. Mitchell and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Darrell Parks v. USDC-CALA
as 12-72120
:
In re: DARRELL JAMES PARKS
Petitioner:
DARRELL JAMES PARKS
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES
Real Party In Interest:
ISAAC FULWOOD, Jr., PATRICIA K. CUSHWA and PAUL R.A. HOWARD, Examiner, United States Parole Commission
Barry Martin v. USA, et al
as 12-5206
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Barry Bernard Martin
Defendant - Appellee:
United States of America, Eric H. Holder, Jr., United States Attorney General, United States Marshals Service and others
STODDARD v. U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION et al
as 1:2012cv00857
Plaintiff:
KEITH STODDARD
Defendant:
U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION, ISAAC FULWOOD, JR., DAVID WYNN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ANDERSON v. HOLDER et al
as 1:2012cv00607
Petitioner:
MICHAEL A. ANDERSON
Respondent:
ERIC HOLDER, JR., BUREAU OF PRISONS, HARLEY G. LAPPIN and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1391
MONROE v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al
as 1:2012cv00558
Petitioner:
SYLVESTER L. MONROE
Respondent:
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION and ISAAC FULWOOD, JR.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2012cv00546
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
STEWART v. WAINWRIGHT et al
as 1:2012cv00509
Petitioner:
NATHANIEL A. STEWART
Respondent:
SIMON WAINWRIGHT, ISAAC FULWOOD, JR. and ERIC HOLDER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2012cv00498
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
