Cases 1 - 9 of 9
Muhammad Jalal Deen Akbar v. U.S. Parole Commission
as 2:2021cv02846
Petitioner:
Muhammad Jalal Deen Akbar and Muhammad Jalal-Deen Akbar, Sr
Respondent:
U.S. Parole Commission
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Michael O. DeVaughn v. U.S. Parole Commission et al
as 2:2020cv09143
Respondent:
David Valentine and U.S. Parole Commission
Petitioner:
Michael O. DeVaughn
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Rodney Browning v. Richard Ives et al
as 2:2013cv07787
Petitioner:
Rodney Browning
Respondent:
Richard Ives and U.S. Parole Commission
Robert James Franks v. Linda Sanders et al
as 2:2010cv01319
Respondent:
Bureau of Prisons, Linda Sanders and U.S. Parole Commission
Petitioner:
Robert James Franks
Victor Bagha v. U.S. Parole Commission
as 2:2009cv07466
Petitioner:
Victor Bagha
Respondent:
U.S. Parole Commission and U.S. Parole Commission
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Ronald Claude Kettells v. U.S. Parole Commission et al
as 2:2009cv01669
Petitioner:
Ronald Claude Kettells
Respondent:
U.S. Parole Commission, U.S. Parole Commission and Rod Hoops
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Lee Alphonso Moore v. U.S. Parole Commission et al
as 2:2009cv00620
Petitioner:
Lee Alphonso Moore
Respondent:
U.S. Parole Commission and J. L. Norwood
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Stephen C. Forde v. People of the State of California et al
as 8:2008cv00259
Petitioner:
Stephen C. Forde
Respondent:
People of The State of California and U.S. Parole Commission
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Darnell Garcia v. U.S. Parole Commission et al
as 2:2007cv03813
Petitioner:
Darnell Garcia
Respondent:
U.S. Parole Commission, Joseph Woodring and Federal Bureau of Prisons, Terminal Island
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
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.
