Cases 21 - 30 of 67
Barrick v. Paul
as 5:2021cv00193
Respondent:
Warden David Paul, FMC Lexington and BOP
Petitioner:
Michael T. Barrick
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Shandor v. United States et al
as 2:2021cv10708
Defendant:
United States United States, OPM, BOP Bop and others
Plaintiff:
Trisha Ryanne Shandor
Cause Of Action: 12 U.S.C. § 635
Arthur Moler v. Benjamin Potter, et al
as 20-5579
Defendant / Appellee:
[UNKNOWN] PROPERTY GUARDS, Property Officers, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, through the BOP Ian Connors, Central Office Counsel for the BOP, CARLOS MARTINEZ, Deputy Counsel Mid-Atlantic Regional Office "MARO" and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ARTHUR FLEMMING MOLER
James et al v. BOP et al
as 5:2020cv00212
Defendant:
Francisco Quintana, BOP and FMC Lexington, Kentucky
Plaintiff:
Tony Allen Stonell, William Marks and Joseph Alan James
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
James et al v. Federal BOP et al
as 5:2020cv00211
Plaintiff:
Josh Woodey, Chad Tyson West, Paul McNeary and others
Defendant:
Federal BOP and FMC Lexington, Kentucky
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Barrett v. Carvajal et al
as 4:2020cv00937
Petitioner:
Travis J. Barrett
Respondent:
BOP Director Michael Carvajal and Warden Mark Williams
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Arthur Moler v. Christopher Mabe, et al
as 20-5077
Defendant / Appellee:
JOHN O'BRIEN, Chief Administrator DSCC, L. VAUGHN, OIC SHU Officer, THOMAS BRANSCUM, Camp Secretary and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ARTHUR FLEMMING MOLER
Walter Mays v. Steven Merlak, et al
as 16-4030
Plaintiff - Appellant:
WALTER MAYS
Defendant - Appellee:
STEVEN MERLAK, Warden, F.C.I. ELKTON MEDICAL DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR and BOP NE REGIONAL OFFICE DIRECTOR
Mays v. Merlak et al
as 4:2016cv00882
Plaintiff:
Walter Mays
Defendant:
S. Merlak, FCI Elkton Medical Department Administrator and BOP NE Regional Office Director
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.
