Cases 21 - 30 of 3,826
Gorbey v. Warden
as 24-2155
Petitioner:
MICHAEL S. GORBEY and Michael Steven Owl Feather-Gorbey
Respondent:
WARDEN, USP Coleman 1
Gorbey v. Sickle, et al.
as 24-2145
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL S. GORBEY and Michael Steven Owl Feather-Gorbey
Defendant:
SICKLE, Associate Warden, USP Victorville Cal., GORE, Mr., First Name Unknown, Captain USP Victorville, Cal., JOHN DOE, SIS Staff, USP Victorville Cal. and others
Michael Gorbey v. Geisinger Eye Center Owners & Rueters, et al
as 24-1590
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL STEVEN GORBEY, aka Michael Feather-Gorbey aka Michael Owl Feather Gorbey
Defendant:
GEISINGER EYE CENTER OWNERS & RUETERS, PATRICIA S. DODSZUWEIT, Clerk of Court U.S. App.Ct. 3rd Cir., J. OLSON, Ophthomology Doctor Geisinger Eye Center and others
Green v. Warden, USP Canaan
as 1:2024cv00131
Petitioner:
Reginald Edward Green
Respondent:
Warden, USP Canaan
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Lewis v. Warden of USP Hazelton
as 5:2024cv00064
Petitioner:
Vashun Lewis
Respondent:
Warden of USP Hazelton
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Pinson v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
as 24-1917
Plaintiff:
JEREMY VAUGHN PINSON
Defendant:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Federal Agency at USP Tucson
Glass v. USP Victorville
as 1:2024cv01372
Petitioner:
Donald Glass
Defendant:
USP Victorville
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Mattox v. USP Big Sandy
as 7:2024cv00027
Plaintiff:
Marcus Anthony Mattox
Defendant:
USP Big Sandy
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
James v. Warden, USP McCreary
as 6:2024cv00039
Petitioner:
Crandall James
Respondent:
Warden, USP McCreary
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Campbell v. USPS
as 8:2024cv00111
Plaintiff:
Herbert L. Campbell
Defendant:
USPS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
