Cases 21 - 30 of 30
Mendiola v. Federal Bureau Of Prisons et al
as 3:2020cv50499
Plaintiff:
Juan Mendiola
Defendant:
Federal Bureau Of Prisons, Employees at this institution AUSP Thomson, Warden of AUSP Thomson and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Michael Gordon v. Unknown Party, et al
as 20-17296
Defendant / Appellee:
ENGLAND, Health Service Administrator, Tucson Arizona, BEHLE, Lieutenant, AUSP Thomson, Illinois, UNKNOWN PARTY, Medical Doctor, Coleman Florida and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MICHAEL LEE GORDON
Hill v. Rivers et al
as 3:2020cv50281
Petitioner:
Demetrius Hill
Respondent:
AUSP Thomson Administration, Warden Rivers and Chris Rivers
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Davis v. Rivers et al
as 3:2020cv50251
Petitioner:
William Scott Davis
Respondent:
AUSP Thomson and C. Rivers
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Sloan v. Warden Hudson at AUSP Thomson, IL et al
as 5:2020cv00104
Petitioner:
Jimmy J. Sloan, Jr.
Respondent:
Warden Hudson at AUSP Thomson, IL
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Rodriguez v. Hudson et al
as 3:2020cv50077
Plaintiff:
Luis Rodriguez
Defendant:
E. Ward, Known and Unknown AUSP Thomson Correctional Officers, Lt. Reicks and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Brown v. AUSP-Thomson et al
as 3:2020cv50059
Defendant:
Medical Dept., B. Willmirth, Mailroom-R+D Dept. and others
Plaintiff:
Ramon DeShaun Brown
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Sloan v. Warden Hudson at AUSP Thomson, IL et al
as 1:2019cv08384
Petitioner:
Jimmy J. Sloan, Jr.
Respondent:
Warden Hudson at AUSP Thomson, IL
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Dandridge v. Hudson
as 1:2019cv05634
Petitioner:
Delmond Maurice Dandridge, Jr
Respondent:
D. Hudson, AUSP Thomson and Donald Hudson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Alvarado v. AUSP Thomson
as 1:2019cv04841
Petitioner:
Lawrence A Alvarado
Respondent:
Warden AUSP Thomson
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.
