Cases 11 - 20 of 47
Decker v. Sproul
as 3:2023cv02482
Petitioner:
Robert K. Decker
Respondent:
Daniel Sproul
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Shawn Christy v. Daniel Sproul
as 23-1940
Petitioner / Appellant:
SHAWN R. CHRISTY
Respondent / Appellee:
DANIEL SPROUL
Pemberton v. USA et al
as 3:2023cv01370
Petitioner:
Devin A. Pemberton
Respondent:
USA, USP Marion and Daniel Sproul
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Speakes v. Bureau of Prisons
as 3:2023cv01413
Petitioner:
Joshua S Speakes
Defendant:
Bureau of Prisons and Daniel Sproul
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Robert Decker v. Katherine Sireveld, et al
as 23-1725
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ROBERT K. DECKER
Defendant / Appellee:
KATHERINE SIREVELD, Legal Deprtment of terre Haute & Marion F.C.I.'s, MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General of the United States, MICHAEL CARVAJAL and others
Decker v. Sproul
as 3:2023cv00199
Petitioner:
Robert K. Decker
Respondent:
Daniel Sproul
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Matthew Sullivan v. Daniel Sproul
as 23-1133
Petitioner / Appellant:
MATTHEW SULLIVAN
Respondent / Appellee:
DANIEL SPROUL
Annamalai v. Sproul et al
as 3:2022cv02579
Plaintiff:
Annamalai Annamalai and Swamiji Sri Selvam Siddhar
Defendant:
Daniel Sproul, Nathan Simpkins, Annabell Fields and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Annamalai v. Simpkins et al
as 3:2022cv02576
Plaintiff:
Annamalai Annamalai and Swamiji Sri Selvam Siddhar
Defendant:
Nathan Simpkins, Gary Burgess, Daniel Sproul and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
La' Ron Matlock v. Daniel Sproul
as 22-2999
Petitioner / Appellant:
LA' RON MATLOCK, also known as LARON MATLOCK
Respondent / Appellee:
DANIEL SPROUL, Warden
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.
