Cases 1 - 10 of 180
Marino v. Watts
as 18-997
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Vincent Michael Marino
Defendant - Appellee:
Deborah G. Schult, Warden/BOP/DOJ, Sepanek, Counselor / BOP/DOJ and Lucas, Case Manager/BOP/DOJ
Defendant:
Harrell Watts, General Counsel /BOP/DOJ, Robert Helms, SIS Lieutenant/DOJ, Jason Poirier, Correctional Officer /BOP/DOJ and others
Chambers v. Sepanek et al
as 7:2017cv00146
Plaintiff:
Roscoe Chambers
Defendant:
M. Sepanek and John Doe
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Dale Challoner v. Michael Sepanek
as 16-6752
Petitioner - Appellant:
DALE LLOYD CHALLONER
Respondent - Appellee:
MICHAEL SEPANEK, Warden, Warden
Anthony Barrett v. Michael Sepanek
as 16-6619
Petitioner - Appellant:
ANTHONY C. BARRETT
Respondent - Appellee:
MICHAEL SEPANEK, Warden
Walker v. Schult
as 16-3460
Plaintiff - Appellee:
Ellis Walker
Defendant:
J. L. Norwood, Regional Director and Harley Lappin, Director, Bureau of Prisons
Defendant - Appellant:
Deborah G. Schult, Warden, FCI Ray Brook, Russell Perdue, Warden, FCI Ray Brook, David Salamy, Unit Manager, FCI Ray Brook and others
Aaron Hunter-El v. J. Caraway, et al
as 16-6300
Plaintiff - Appellant:
SHEIK AARON HUNTER-EL, aka Aaron D. Hunter
Defendant:
J. F. CARAWAY, Warden, Regional Director, MICHAEL SEPANEK, Warden and GREGORY A. KIZZIAH, Warden
Sandoval v. Sepanek
as 7:2016cv00162
Petitioner:
Roberto Sandoval
Respondent:
Michael Sepanek
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Hunter v. Caraway et al
as 7:2016cv00145
Plaintiff:
Aaron Hunter-el
Defendant:
J. F. Caraway, M. Sepanek and Gregory A. Kizziah
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Barrett v Sepanek
as 7:2016cv00136
Petitioner:
Anthony C. Barrett
Respondent:
Michael Sepanek
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Bey v. Sepanek
as 7:2016cv00123
Petitioner:
Rodorrio Wells Bey
Respondent:
M. Sepanek
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
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.
