Cases 1 - 10 of 190
Stine v. Young et al
as 5:2024ct03298
Defendant:
Mr. Jackson, Ms. N. Sharkey, Mr. Grose and others
Plaintiff:
Mikeal Glenn Stine
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Stine v. Scarantino
as 5:2024hc02213
Respondent:
Warden T. Scarantino
Petitioner:
Mikeal Glenn Stine
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Stine v. Rider et al
as 5:2024ct03277
Defendant:
Asst. Warden Flowers, Lt. M. Ball, David Rich and others
Plaintiff:
Mikeal Glenn Stine
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Stine v. United States of America
as 5:2024ct03275
Defendant:
United States of America
Plaintiff:
Mikeal Glenn Stine and Mikeal Stine
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2671 Federal Tort Claims Act
Stine v. Howard, et al.
as 24-6606
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Federal Bureau of Prisons, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Agency at USP - Tucson, UNKNOWN TUBBS, Ms. Tubbs, Associate Warden and others
Plaintiff:
MIKEAL GLENN STINE
Mikeal Stine v. USDC-AZT
as 23-70166
Not Classified By Court:
In re: MIKEAL GLENN STINE, C RIVADENEYRA, named as Senior Correctional Officer at U.S. Penitentiary Tucson, C NEWLAND, named as Physician Assistant/Nurse at U.S. Penitentiary Tucson and others
Petitioner:
MIKEAL GLENN STINE
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA, TUCSON
Stine v. USA
as 1:2023cv02210
Petitioner:
Mikeal Glenn Stine
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2023cv00381
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Stine v. Fragoso et al
as 4:2023cv00328
Plaintiff:
Mikeal Glenn Stine
Defendant:
R Fragoso, J Coyle, M Gutierrez and others
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.