Cases 41 - 50 of 60
STANKO v. LAPPIN et al
as 1:2009cv02381
Plaintiff:
RUDY STANKO
Defendant:
HARLEY LAPPIN, HERRELL WATTS, MICHAEL K. NALLEY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Stanko v. Ebbert
as 4:2009cv02421
Petitioner:
Rudy Stanko
Respondent:
David Ebbert and David Ebbert
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
STANKO v. OBAMA et al
as 4:2009cv02180
Petitioner:
Rudy Stanko
Respondent:
Barack Obama, Harley Lappin, D. Scott Dodrill and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Stanko v. Obama et al
as 4:2009cv01911
Respondent:
Barack Obama and David Ebbert
Petitioner:
Rudy Stanko
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Stanko v. Quay, et al
as 09-1214
Plaintiff - Appellant:
RUDY STANKO
Defendant - Appellee:
HERMAN QUAY, local director, MICHAEL NALLEY, regional director and HARLEY LAPPIN, national director
Stanko v. Quay, et al
as 09-1159
Plaintiff - Appellant:
RUDY STANKO
Defendant - Appellee:
HERMAN QUAY, Local Director, MICHAEL NALLEY, Regional Director and HARLEY LAPPIN, National Director
Stanko v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
as 0:2009cv00035
Plaintiff:
Rudy Stanko
Defendant:
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Stanko v. Davis, et al
as 09-1104
Plaintiff - Appellant:
RUDY STANKO
Defendant - Appellee:
BLAKE DAVIS, individually and in his official capacity as a Warden, MICHAEL K. NALLEY, individually and in his official capacity as Regional Director, HARLEY LAPPIN, individually and in his official capacity as Director and others
Stanko v. Davis
as 09-1073
Petitioner - Appellant:
RUDY STANKO
Respondent - Appellee:
BLAKE DAVIS, Warden, F.C.I. Englewood
Stanko v. Quay et al
as 1:2009cv00371
Petitioner:
Rudy Stanko
Respondent:
Herman Quay, Michael Nalley and Harley Lappin
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
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.
