Cases 1 - 10 of 11
Elvis Amarame v. Eric Holder, Jr.
as 15-60003
Petitioner:
ELVIS JOSEPH AMARAME, also known as Prince Joseph, also known as Joseph Prince, also known as Elvis Amarame
Respondent:
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2014cv00685
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Elvis Amarame v. Eric Holder, Jr.
as 14-60092
Petitioner:
ELVIS JOSEPH AMARAME, also known as Prince Joseph, also known as Joseph Prince, also known as Elvis Amarame
Respondent:
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2013cv03153
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Elvis Amarame v. Eric Holder, Jr.
as 13-60213
Petitioner:
ELVIS JOSEPH AMARAME, also known as Prince Joseph, also known as Joseph Prince, also known as Elvis Amarame
Respondent:
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Amarame v. Holder
as 13-899
Petitioner:
Elvis Joseph Amarame, AKA Prince Joseph, AKA Joseph Prince, AKA Elvis Amarame
Respondent:
Eric H. Holder, Jr., United States Attorney General
Elvis Amarame v. Eric Holder, Jr.
as 13-70868
Petitioner:
ELVIS JOSEPH AMARAME, AKA Elvis Amarame, AKA Prince Joseph, AKA Joseph Prince
Respondent:
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General
Amarame v. Graber
as 4:2010cv00057
Petitioner:
Elvis Joseph Amarame
Respondent:
Conrad M Graber
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Elvis Amarame v. Robert Gates
as 09-7820
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ELVIS JOSEPH AMARAME
Defendant - Appellee:
ROBERT GATES, in his individual capacity and JOSEPH OWENS, in his individual capacity
Elvis Amarame v. Matthew Hamidullah
as 08-8169
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ELVIS JOSEPH AMARAME
Defendant - Appellee:
MATTHEW B. HAMIDULLAH, Warden, in his individual capacity, ROBERT GATES, in his individual capacity and JOSEPH OWENS, in his individual capacity
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.
