Cases 1 - 7 of 7
Owl Feather- Gorbey v. John or Jane Doe et al
as 0:2023cv03229
Plaintiff:
(Chief) Michael S. Owl Feather- Gorbey, Prince Michael S. Owl Feather- Chow-Chow (Son of Heaven) and Tsunami Khan
Defendant:
John or Jane Doe, Henry McMaster, Uncle Sam and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights, Federal Filers (Bivens)
Feather-Gorbey v. Heckard et al
as 5:2022cv00183
Petitioner:
Tsunomi Khan (Chief) Michael S. Owl Feather-Gorbey
Respondent:
Warden Heckard, Governor Office WVa., State Attorney Office and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442 Notice of Removal
Michael Owl Feather-Gorbey v. Admin Fed BOP Grand Prairie, et al
as 20-10749
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Chief Michael S. Owl Feather-Gorbey
Defendant / Appellee:
Administrator Federal Bureau of Prisons Grand Prairie and Federal Bureau of Prisons United States
OWL FEATHER-GORBEY v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS et al
as 3:2020cv00867
Plaintiff:
CHIEF MICHAEL S. OWL FEATHER-GORBEY
Defendant:
Federal Bureau of Prisons and U.S Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Owl Feather-Gorbey v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al
as 3:2019cv00885
Respondent:
Federal Bureau of Prisons, Administrator of BOP Classification Designation Center and Unknown Named F BOP Classification Designation Center Staff
Petitioner:
Chief Michael S. Owl Feather-Gorbey
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Michael Owl Feather-Gorbey v. Administrator Federal BOP, et al
as 18-10475
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CHIEF MICHAEL S. OWL FEATHER-GORBEY
Defendant - Appellee:
ADMINISTRATOR FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS GRAND PRAIRIE and FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS UNITED STATES
Owl Feather-Gorbey v. Administrator F. BOP Grand Prairie et al
as 6:2017cv00002
Defendant:
Administrator F. BOP Grand Prairie and F. BOP United States
Plaintiff:
Chief Michael S. Owl Feather-Gorbey
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.
