Cases 1 - 10 of 20
Manos et al v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al
as 0:2018cv00427
Plaintiff:
Theodore Manos and Tatyana Manos
Defendant:
Federal Bureau of Prisons, Mark S. Inch, L. LaRiva and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Lyons v. Sanders et al
as 6:2016cv03462
Plaintiff:
Deon Lorenzo Lyons
Defendant:
Linda Sanders, USMCFP Springfield Administration, Inspector General Office and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Charles LaLiberte v. Charles Samuels, Jr., et al
as 16-2497
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Charles A. LaLiberte
Defendant - Appellee:
Charles E. Samuels, Jr., Director of Bureau of Prisons and Christopher Nickrenz
Lyons v. Sanders et al
as 6:2016cv03074
Plaintiff:
Deon Lorenzo Lyons
Defendant:
Linda Sanders, J Grondolsky, FMC Devens Administration and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Stilley v. USA et al
as 2:2015cv00163
Plaintiff:
Oscar Stilley
Defendant:
USA, Department of Justice, Charles E Samuels, Jr and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Beck v. Samuels
as 0:2015cv02635
Petitioner:
Jason Beck
Respondent:
Charles E. Samuels, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Travis Emory Correll v. The United States of America, et al
as 15-2188
Petitioner - Appellant:
Travis Emory Correll
Respondent - Appellee:
The United States of America, Eric Holder, Attorney General, Charles E. Samuels, Jr., Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons and others
Vivek Shah v. Charles Samuels, Jr., et al
as 15-1952
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Vivek Shah
Defendant - Appellee:
Charles E. Samuels, Jr., D.S.C.C. Administrator, sued in his official capacity, United States of America and Jose A. Santana, DSCC Administrator (originally named as Doe)
TePoel v. Samuels
as 0:2015cv02332
Petitioner:
Daniel TePoel
Respondent:
Charles E. Samuels, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Coleman v. Samuels
as 0:2015cv01856
Petitioner:
Kevin L Coleman
Respondent:
Charles E. Samuels, Jr.
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.
