Cases 11 - 20 of 69
Botsvynyuk v. Fikes
as 2:2022cv00120
Petitioner:
Stepan Botsvynyuk
Respondent:
Warden J. Fikes
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Botsvynyuk v. Fikes
as 5:2022cv00067
Petitioner:
Stepan Botsvynyuk
Respondent:
Warden J. Fikes
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Cole v. Fikes
as 2:2022cv00111
Petitioner:
James Owen Cole
Respondent:
Warden J. Fikes
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Jones v. Fikes
as 2:2022cv00093
Petitioner:
Edward Jones
Respondent:
Warden J. Fikes
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Moody v. Geter et al
as 2:2022cv00088
Plaintiff:
Robert Moody
Defendant:
L. Geter, FNU, LNU C.O.s, D. Ward and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Abdur-Rahiim v. Fikes
as 2:2022cv00061
Petitioner:
Muhsin Abdur-Rahiim
Respondent:
Warden J. Fikes
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Timmy Reichling v. T.J. Fikes, et al
as 22-2366
Petitioner / Appellant:
Timmy J. Reichling
Respondent / Appellee:
T. J. Fikes, Warden, Dr. Ann LaValley-Wood, Chief Psychologist, D. Drillings, Correctional Officer and others
Respondent:
Dr. Warlick, Staff Psychologist, R. Zaudkte, Correctional Officer, T. Scullard, Correctional Officer and others
Cannady v. Fikes
as 2:2022cv00055
Petitioner:
Rodney Earl Cannedy and Rodney Earl Cannady
Respondent:
Warden J. Fikes
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Newell v. Fikes
as 2:2022cv00053
Petitioner:
Carlos Rodriguez Newell
Respondent:
Warden J. Fikes
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Collins v. Fikes et al
as 0:2022cv01320
Plaintiff:
Stephen Collins
Defendant:
Warden J. Fikes, D. Drilling and J. Best
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
