Cases 1 - 10 of 232
Frederick Banks v. BOP, et al
as 24-1478
Plaintiff:
FREDERICK H. BANKS
Defendant:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE and ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Martin Jonassen, et al v. BOP, et al
as 24-1327
Plaintiff:
MARTIN JONASSEN and ELIZABETH MARY JONASSEN
Defendant:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and MR. PERKINS
Gerrett Conover v. United States Bureau of Prisons, et al
as 24-1081
Plaintiff:
GERRETT CONOVER
Defendant:
UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS and WARDEN ALLENWOOD FCI
Rolando Muniz v. USA, et al
as 24-1028
Plaintiff:
RONALDO MUNIZ and ROLANDO MUNIZ
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS and DR. ABIGAIL LOPEZ-DE LASALLE
Clyde Pontefract v. BOP, et al
as 23-3142
Plaintiff / Appellant:
CLYDE PONTEFRACT
Defendant:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, WARDEN FORT DIX FCI and UNITED STATES POST OFFICE, Supervisor, Fort Dix
Marcellus Washington v. Federal Bureau of Prisons Central Office/General, et al
as 23-3083
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MARCELLUS WASHINGTON
Defendant / Appellee:
GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
Thomas Waters v. BOP, et al
as 23-2918
Plaintiff / Appellant:
THOMAS WATERS
Defendant / Appellee:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY POLLUCK, UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY FLORENCE and others
Andrew Fields v. BOP, et al
as 23-2479
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ANDREW FIELDS
Defendant / Appellee:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, PAEDRO, Educational Supervisor, GILIGAN, Correctional Officer and others
DeJuan Thornton-BeyIn re: DeJuan Thornton-Bey
as 23-2057
Petitioner:
In re: DEJUAN B. THORNTON-BEY
Respondent:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, WARDEN D. CHRISTENSEN, C.O. B. FOGLEMAN and others
Kareem Millhouse v. Suzanne Heath, et al
as 23-1333
Plaintiff / Appellant:
KAREEM HASSAN MILLHOUSE
Defendant / Appellee:
SUZANNE V. HEATH, JAMES FOSNOT, DAVID EBBERT and others
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.
