Cases 1 - 10 of 69
Armando v. Warden of USP Thomson
as 4:2023cv04177
Petitioner:
Ibarra Medina Armando
Respondent:
Warden of USP Thomson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Ibarra-Medina v. Warden of USP Thomson
as 1:2023cv15066
Petitioner:
Ibarra Medina Armando and Armando Ibarra-Medina
Respondent:
Warden of USP Thomson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Pemberton v. USA et al
as 3:2023cv01370
Petitioner:
Devin A. Pemberton
Respondent:
USA, USP Marion and Daniel Sproul
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Jones v. Warden of Marion USP
as 3:2023cv01180
Petitioner:
Oshay Jones
Respondent:
Warden of Marion USP
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Smith v. Warden, USP Thomson
as 3:2023cv50018
Petitioner:
Tyrese Smith
Respondent:
Warden, USP Thomson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Larrabee v. Bergami
as 3:2022cv50446
Petitioner:
Jonathan Wayne Larrabee
Respondent:
T. Bergami and T. Bergami, Warden, USP Thomson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Doctor v. Thomson USP Illinois
as 3:2021cv50117
Petitioner:
Kareem A. Doctor and Kareem Antwan Doctor
Respondent:
Thomson USP illinois
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Christy v. Marion USP
as 3:2022cv02044
Plaintiff:
Shawn Christy
Defendant:
Marion USP, Daniel Sproul, John LeClair and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
McNatt v. Bergami
as 3:2022cv50277
Petitioner:
Christopher McNatt
Respondent:
Warden, USP Thomson and Thomas Bergami
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Farrington v.Bergami
as 3:2022cv50250
Petitioner:
Tavares L. Farrington
Respondent:
Warden, USP Coleman I, Thomas Bergami and D. Gonzalez, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
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.
