Cases 1 - 10 of 59
Compton v. Conner et al
as 5:2024cv00230
Plaintiff:
Rodney C. Compton
Defendant:
J. Conner, A. Ross and FCI-Beckley
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Jenkins v. FCI Beckley
as 5:2024cv00077
Plaintiff:
Keyshaun Jenkins
Defendant:
FCI Beckley
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jenkins v. FCI Beckley
as 4:2024cv00160
Plaintiff:
Keyshaun Jenkins
Defendant:
FCI Beckley
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Cunningham v. FCI Beckley
as 5:2024cv00031
Plaintiff:
Charles Muhammad Cunningham and Charles Muhammad Abdus-Shaheed Cunningham
Defendant:
FCI Beckley, Kitchen Manager Bailey, John Doe and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Lafond v. Warden
as 5:2023cv00718
Petitioner:
Juvonta Lafond
Respondent:
FCI Beckley Warden
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Brown v. Holzapfel et al
as 5:2023cv00606
Plaintiff:
Michael Anthony Brown
Defendant:
Warden W. Holzapfel, Dr. Edwards, Associate Warden and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Steelman v. Warden
as 5:2023cv00599
Petitioner:
Robert Keith Steelman
Respondent:
FCI Beckley Warden
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Walker v. Warden
as 5:2023cv00553
Petitioner:
Jason Walker
Respondent:
FCI Beckley Warden
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Reynolds v. Warden, FCI Beckley
as 5:2023cv00533
Petitioner:
Donald Reynolds
Respondent:
DSCC, FCI Beckley, Federal Bureau of Prisons and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Anderson v. Holzapfel
as 5:2023cv00490
Petitioner:
Dewayne Anderson
Respondent:
FCI Beckley Warden W. Holzapfel
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.
