Cases 21 - 30 of 135
Marshall v. English, et al
as 21-3101
Defendant / Appellee:
JOHN DOE (4), Blind IRS Employee/Undercover Person, in his individual and official capacity, TOMMIE TURNER, Client/Associate/Stakeholder-Wizard Services/Joe Marshall's Companies, in his individual capacity, Estate of Travis Johnson, JOHN CORNELIUS, IRS Special Agent, Criminal Investigation Division, Austin, Texas, in his individual capacity and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JONATHAN MARSHALL, SR.
Tolbert v. Hudson
as 21-3102
Petitioner / Appellant:
RICKEY WAYNE TOLBERT, JR.
Respondent / Appellee:
(FNU) HUDSON, Warden, USP Leavenworth
Marshall v. Health Service Administrators et al
as 1:2021cv01374
Defendant:
USP Lee, USP Coleman I, USP Atwater and others
Plaintiff:
Deric Marshall
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Aloba v. Avant et al
as 5:2021cv00337
Defendant:
USPS, United States, Warden Grant and others
Plaintiff:
Oriyomi Aloba
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Kowalczyk v. Bureau of Prisons et al
as 1:2021cv00950
Defendant:
Administrative Remedy Coordinator of Florence FCC/USP, Health Services Dept. of BOP, US Marshal Service and others
Plaintiff:
Andrew Kowalczyk
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Tolbert v. United States of America et al
as 5:2021cv03054
Respondent:
(fnu) Hudson, United States of America and USP Leavenworth
Petitioner:
Rickey Wayne Tolbert, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Shaw v. Warden USP Florence
as 1:2021cv00616
Respondent:
Warden USP Florence
Petitioner:
Norman Shaw, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 fd
Dembry v. Hudson
as 21-3016
Respondent / Appellee:
DON HUDSON, Warden, USP Leavenworth
Petitioner / Appellant:
EDWARD KEITH DEMBRY
Jackson v. Warden, USP-Leavenworth
as 21-3011
Respondent / Appellee:
WARDEN, USP-LEAVENWORTH
Petitioner / Appellant:
MICHAEL JACKSON
Fuimaona v. Hudson
as 20-3255
Petitioner / Appellant:
SILIAIVAOESE FUIMAONA
Respondent / Appellee:
D. HUDSON, Warden, USP - Leavenworth
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.
