Cases 11 - 20 of 24
Terrell-Bey v. Figueroua et al
as 1:2015cv00657
Plaintiff:
Brooks James Terrell-Bey
Defendant:
Figueroua, Lapp, W Tidwell and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Brooks Terrell v. Warden, et al
as 13-14970
Plaintiff - Appellant:
BROOKS JAMES TERRELL
Defendant - Appellee:
WARDEN and LEE GREEN
TERRELL-BEY v. UNITED STATES BOARD OF PRISONS et al
as 1:2013cv01484
Petitioner:
BROOKS JAMES TERRELL-BEY
Respondent:
UNITED STATES BOARD OF PRISONS, Constance Reese, Rufus Williams and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
TERRELL-BEY v. UNITED STATES BOARD OF PRISONS et al
as 1:2013cv00747
Plaintiff:
BROOKS JAMES TERRELL-BEY
Defendant:
UNITED STATES BOARD OF PRISONS, CONSTANCE REESE, RUFUS WILLIAMS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
US v. Brooks Terrell
as 12-6223
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
BROOKS JAMES TERRELL
Terrell v. USA
as 7:2012cv00234
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
Brooks James Terrell
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Brooks Terrell v. Mr. Rupert
as 11-7704
Plaintiff - Appellant:
BROOKS JAMES TERRELL
Defendant - Appellee:
MR. RUPERT, Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO), Lee County USP, VA and HARRELL WATTS, Administrator National Inmate Appeals
Defendant:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
Terrell v. Rathman et al
as 1:2011cv03717
Plaintiff:
Brooks James Terrell
Defendant:
John T. Rathman, Walter Vareen, Becky Clay and others
Cause Of Action: 02 U.S.C. § 437
Terrell v. Reese et al
as 1:2011cv01644
Plaintiff:
Brooks James Terrell
Defendant:
Constance Reese, Rufus Williams, Victor Moreno and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Terrell v. Rupert et al
as 7:2011cv00024
Defendant:
Federal Bureau of Prisons, Mr. Rupert and Harrell Watts
Plaintiff:
Brooks James Terrell
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
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.
