Cases 1 - 10 of 13
Eddington v. United States of America et al
as 5:2022hc02028
Petitioner:
Timothy Eddington
Respondent:
United States of America, Warden D. Lev and Bureau of Prisons
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Eddington v. United States of America et al
as 2:2022cv00271
Petitioner:
Timothy Eddington
Respondent:
United States of America, Warden D. Lev and Bureau of Prisons
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Eddington v. United States, et al
as 20-1449
Defendant / Appellee:
MICHAEL SEGAL, Associate Warden, JACQUES LAPRISE, Correctional Officer, BERHAN YEH, Clinical Director and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
TIMOTHY EDDINGTON
Eddington v. United States of America (BOP) et al
as 1:2019cv11232
Defendant:
William Tidwell, Stephen Spaulding, C. Makowicz and others
Plaintiff:
Timothy Eddington
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Eddington v. Grondolsky
as 1:2016cv11711
Petitioner:
Timothy Eddington
Respondent:
Warden J. Grondolsky
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Eddington v. BOP Director et al
as 2:2016cv02575
Plaintiff:
Timothy Eddington
Defendant:
BOP Director, Northeast Regional Director, Attorney General and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Eddington v. Yeh et al
as 1:2016cv10845
Plaintiff:
Timothy Eddington
Defendant:
B Yeh, R. Barnett and K Shilling
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Timothy Eddington v. Charles Samuels, Jr., et al
as 14-2279
Plaintiff - Appellant:
TIMOTHY EDDINGTON
Defendant - Appellee:
CHARLES E. SAMUELS, JR., Director, NEWTON E. KENDIG, COCD/MD, PAUL LAIRD, Regional Director and others
EDDINGTON v. SAMUELS, JR. et al
as 1:2014cv00463
Defendant:
J. BEIGHLEY, J. F. CARAWAY, DANNA DOBBINS and others
Plaintiff:
TIMOTHY EDDINGTON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
EDDINGTON v. ULRICH
as 2:2013cv00353
Plaintiff:
TIMOTHY EDDINGTON
Defendant:
GARY ULRICH
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
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.
