Cases 1 - 10 of 102
Ruiz-Manyoma v. Warden, FMC
as 4:2023cv00540
Petitioner:
Omar Ruiz-Manyoma
Respondent:
Warden, FMC, Rodney Chandler and USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Chandler et al v. GlaxoSmithKline (America) Inc. et al
as 3:2023cv17463
Plaintiff:
Rodney Chandler and Armida Chandler
Defendant:
GlaxoSmithKline (America) Inc., GlaxoSmithKline LLC and GlaxoSmithKline PLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Paz v. United States of America
as 4:2023cv00183
Plaintiff:
Mario Paz
Defendant:
United States of America
Respondent:
Rodney Chandler
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Patida v. United States of America
as 4:2023cv00133
Petitioner:
Jose Patida
Respondent:
United States of America and Rodney Chandler
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
SATTERFIELD v. CHANDLER
as 1:2022cv00995
Plaintiff:
MARCUS ANTONIO SATTERFIELD
Defendant:
CAPTAIN RODNEY CHANDLER, SGT ELLIS, LT. GUILL and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Frank Baptist v. Rodney Chandler
as 22-1718
Plaintiff / Appellee:
Frank Baptist
Defendant / Appellant:
Rodney Chandler, in his individual capacity
Yoo v. The Federal Bureau of Prison Director et al
as 4:2022cv00133
Plaintiff:
Heon Jong Yoo
Defendant:
The Federal Bureau of Prison Director, South Central Regional Director, FCI Fort Worth Warden and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Baptist v. Chandler
as 4:2021cv00675
Plaintiff:
Frank Baptist
Defendant:
Rodney Chandler
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Virgil Hall v. Rodney Chandler, et al
as 19-11285
Defendant / Appellee:
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER OLEGURIO VARGAS, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER DUKE, COUNSELOR MICHAEL TOWCHIK and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
VIRGIL HALL
James Smith v. Rodney Chandler
as 19-10954
Petitioner / Appellant:
JAMES TYRONE SMITH
Respondent / Appellee:
RODNEY CHANDLER, Warden
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.
