Cases 1 - 10 of 68
Mahoney v. Rupska et al
as 5:2019hc02163
Respondent:
William Barr, Associate Warden Rupska and Assistant Warden Irwin
Petitioner:
Brian Edward Mahoney
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Hall v. Inch et al
as 5:2019ct03048
Defendant:
P.A. Shaw, Unit Manager Lesley, Angela P. Dunbar and others
Plaintiff:
Marc Pierre Hall
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Ou-Young v. Roberts et al
as 5:2018ct03272
Defendant:
Maxine M. Chesney, J.C. Holland, Joseph S. Zonno and others
Plaintiff:
Kuang Bao Ou-Young
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
TURNER v. RUPSKA et al
as 2:2018cv00420
Defendant:
DOUG MCGUIRK, A. RUPSKA, C. DANIELS and others
Plaintiff:
JOHN W. TURNER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Abdul-Aziz Muhammad v. Andrew Rupska, et al
as 18-2554
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ABDUL-AZIZ RASHID MUHAMMAD
Defendant - Appellee:
ANDREW W. RUPSKA, Doctor, KIMBERLY KLINK, CHRISTOPHER BLILA and others
Abdul-Aziz Muhammad v. Andrew Rupska, et al
as 18-2017
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ABDUL-AZIZ RASHID MUHAMMAD
Defendant - Appellee:
ANDREW W. RUPSKA, Doctor, KIMBERLY KLINK, CHRISTOPHER BLILA and others
RUNYON v. KRUEGER et al
as 2:2017cv00530
Defendant:
BRAZZELL, JOHN EDWARDS, FBI AGENT and others
Plaintiff:
DAVID RUNYON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
RUNYON v. KRUEGER et al
as 1:2017cv04277
Defendant:
BRAZZELL, JOHN EDWARDS, FBI AGENT and others
Plaintiff:
DAVID RUNYON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
DAVIS v. KRUEGER et al
as 2:2017cv00467
Defendant:
CHARLES A. DANIELS, JANE/JOHN DOES, JEFFREY E. KRUEGER and others
Plaintiff:
LEN DAVIS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
PARKER v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS et al
as 2:2017cv00174
Defendant:
CHARLES A. DANIELS, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS and DAVID ROYER
Plaintiff:
LEE MCDANIEL PARKER
HSA:
A. RUPSKA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
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.
