Cases 41 - 50 of 312
ANDERSON v. U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
as 1:2017cv02807
Plaintiff:
MELVIN ANDERSON
Defendant:
U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 552
EVANS v. U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION
as 1:2017cv02553
Petitioner:
HERBERT EVANS
Respondent:
U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 8:2017cv03335
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Alexander v. U.S. Parole Commission
as 5:2017hc02189
Petitioner:
Kendell Alexander
Respondent:
U.S. Parole Commission
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
SAMUEL v. U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION et al
as 1:2017cv01962
Plaintiff:
JOSHUA SAMUEL
Defendant:
U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION, B.O.P. and JULIAN MITCHELL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Johnson v. U.S. Dept. of Justice et al
as 1:2017cv05941
Plaintiff:
Albert Louis Johnson
Defendant:
U.S. Dept. of Justice , U.S. Parole Commission , Randell Lewis and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
MILLER v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al
as 1:2017cv01619
Plaintiff:
JULIUS WAYNE MILLER
Defendant:
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION, WARDEN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
THOMAS v. U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION
as 1:2017cv01549
Petitioner:
CHARLES THOMAS
Respondent:
U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
James Wallace Fox v. Brick Tripp
as 17-6892
Petitioner - Appellant:
JAMES WALLACE FOX
Respondent - Appellee:
BRICK TRIPP and U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION
Keith Webb-el v. Thomas Kane, et al
as 17-5159
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Keith B. Webb-El
Defendant - Appellee:
Thomas R. Kane, Director, U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons, Central Office, J. Patricia Wilson Smoot, Commissioner, U.S. Parole Commission, A. Smith, A-2 Unit Counselor, Federal Correctional Institution and others
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.
