Cases 1 - 10 of 15
GASSEW v. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL
as 1:2019cv03279
Petitioner:
JOHN JOSEPH GASSEW, JR., JOHN GASSEW and JOHN NEIL GASSEW
Respondent:
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
GASSEW v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISON
as 1:2019cv01522
Defendant:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISON
Plaintiff:
JOHN NEIL GASSEW
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
CARBAJAL v. ROBERTS et al
as 1:2018cv00523
Plaintiff:
DEAN CARBAJAL
Defendant:
JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR., SONIA SOTOMAYOR, ANTHONY M. KENNEDY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
WILLIAMS v. STATE OF HAWAII et al
as 1:2016cv01363
Plaintiff:
ANTHONY T. WILLIAMS
Defendant:
STATE OF HAWAII, DAVID IGE, STATE OF GEORGIA ATTORNEY GENERAL and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SHEPHARD v. MORVZIN et al
as 1:2015cv00923
Plaintiff:
ALONZO DEAN SHEPHARD
Defendant:
MORVZIN, DESNIN, EMPTAGE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BAMDAD v. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION et al
as 1:2014cv00137
Plaintiff:
MASOUD BAMDAD
Defendant:
DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, DIRECTOR OF DEA, DIRECTOR OF DEA DIVERSION UNIT and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ARRINGTON v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al
as 1:2012cv01532
Plaintiff:
DERREK E. ARRINGTON
Defendant:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, PUBLIC DEFENDER DEPARTMENT and NEIL JAFFEE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2011cv01951
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
MARKS v. DOES et al
as 1:2009cv00943
Plaintiff:
ANTOLIN ANDREW MARKS
Defendant:
JOHN AND JANE DOES, BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF GEO GROUP, GEO GROUP INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
MARKS v. HOLDER et al
as 1:2009cv00911
Plaintiff:
ANTOLIN ANDREW MARKS
Defendant:
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. and NEIL CLARK
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
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.
