Cases 1 - 10 of 40
Schubert v. Avery et al
as 3:2024cv00212
Plaintiff:
Allan Douglas Schubert
Defendant:
Krystal Avery, Shannon W. Phelps, James Wills and others
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Phillips v. Boulet, et al
as 2:2024cv00065
Plaintiff:
Christopher Phillips
Defendant:
Farmers Insurance Exchange, Nicholas Boulet, Tami Boulet and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Tort/Motor Vehicle (P.I.)
Shaw v. Boulet
as 23-60589
Petitioner / Appellant:
Santiago M. Shaw
Respondent / Appellee:
P. Boulet, Warden
McDuffie v. Boulet
as 3:2023cv00075
Plaintiff:
Harold McDuffie
Defendant:
P. Boulet
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Giordano v. Boulet
as 3:2022cv00749
Plaintiff:
Philip A. Giordano
Defendant:
Warden Unknown Boulet
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Pitter v. Boulet
as 3:2022cv00714
Plaintiff:
Curtis Pitter
Defendant:
Paul Boulet
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Carr v. Boulet
as 3:2022cv00533
Plaintiff:
Quashun Demarcus Carr
Defendant:
Warden Unknown Boulet
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Robinson v. Warden, Paul Boulet
as 3:2022cv00351
Plaintiff:
Tony Dewayne Robinson
Defendant:
Warden, Paul Boulet
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Chaney v. Boulet
as 3:2022cv00303
Plaintiff:
Carlton Lamont Chanery, Sr. and Carlton Lamont Chaney, Sr.
Defendant:
Warden Boulet
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
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.
