Cases 81 - 90 of 119
WHITEHEAD v. WARDEN, FCI FORT DIX et al
as 1:2020cv16010
Defendant:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS and WARDEN, FCI FORT DIX
Plaintiff:
KENNETH WHITEHEAD
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
WILLIAMS v. WARDEN, FCI FORT DIX et al
as 1:2020cv16012
Defendant:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS and WARDEN, FCI FORT DIX
Plaintiff:
AARON WILLIAMS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
MANRING v. WARDEN, FCI FORT DIX et al
as 1:2020cv16014
Plaintiff:
JAMES MANRING
Defendant:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS and WARDEN, FCI FORT DIX
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
WATSON v. WARDEN, FCI FORT DIX et al
as 1:2020cv15636
Defendant:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS and WARDEN, FCI FORT DIX
Plaintiff:
YAHYA WATSON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
LOPEZ v. WARDEN FCI FORT DIX, FBOP
as 1:2020cv15635
Plaintiff:
VICTOR LOPEZ
Defendant:
WARDEN FCI FORT DIX, FBOP
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
COFFIN v. WARDEN, FCI FORT DIX et al
as 1:2020cv15634
Defendant:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS and WARDEN, FCI FORT DIX
Plaintiff:
JOHN COFFIN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
GAUSE v. WARDEN FCI FORT DIX
as 1:2020cv13213
Defendant:
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Petitioner:
MELVIN PERNELL GAUSE
Respondent:
WARDEN FCI FORT DIX
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Robert Friedland v. Donna Zickefoose, et al
as 20-2655
Defendant / Appellee:
JAMES HOLLINGSWORTH, Warden, FCI Fort Dix, ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL SERVICES, at FCI Fort Dix and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ROBERT FRIEDLAND
Terence Sasaki v. Mark Inch, et al
as 19-16519
Defendant / Appellee:
DUTTON, C/O, FSL - Elkton, ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY CLERK(S), NERO, SCHMIDT, CSO, FSL - Elkton and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
TERENCE SASAKI
RIVERS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
as 1:2019cv12568
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and WARDEN, FCI FORT DIX
Petitioner:
VIRGIL RIVERS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
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.
