Cases 1 - 9 of 9
Peter Allan, Sr., et al v. Minnesota DHS, et al
as 24-1329
Plaintiff:
Peter Allan, Sr., Russell Hatton, Michael D. Benson and others
Defendant:
Minnesota Department of Human Services, Jodi Harpstead, in her official capacity as Commissioner of Department of Human Services, Marshall Smith, in his official capacity as Chief Executive Director of Direct Care and Treatment for the Minnesota Sex Offender Program and others
Peter Allan, Sr. v. Cal Ludeman, et al
as 23-1157
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Peter Allan, Sr.
Defendant / Appellee:
Cal Ludeman, In their official & individual capacity, Lucinda Jesson, In their official & individual capacity, Dennis Benson, In their official & individual capacity and others
Peter Allan, Sr. v. Cal Ludeman, et al
as 19-1987
Defendant / Appellee:
David Bornus, Emily Johnson Piper, Jerry Fjerkenstad and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Peter Allan, Sr.
Allan v. Piper et al
as 0:2017cv00152
Plaintiff:
Peter Allan, Sr
Defendant:
Emily Johnson Piper, David Herman, Nancy Johnston and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Peter Allan, Sr. v. United State
as 14-3694
Petitioner - Appellant:
Peter Allan, Sr., also known as Peter Allan George
Respondent - Appellee:
United States of America
Allan v. USA
as 0:2014cv01649
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
Peter Allan, Sr
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
United States v. Peter Allan, Sr.
as 12-3095
Plaintiff - Appellee:
United States of America
Defendant - Appellant:
Peter Allan, Sr., also known as Peter Allan George
Allan v. Ludeman et al
as 0:2010cv00449
Plaintiff:
Peter Allan, Sr
Defendant:
Cal Ludeman, Dennis Benson, Greg Carlson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Allan v. Ludeman et al
as 0:2010cv00176
Plaintiff:
Peter Allan, Sr
Defendant:
Cal Ludeman, Dennis Benson, Michael Tesneer and others
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.
