U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 1 - 10 of 5,696
Rando Saavedra-Ramirez v. Director Federal Bureau of Prisons, et al
as 24-1738
Plaintiff:
RANDO SAAVEDRA-RAMIREZ
Defendant:
DIRECTOR FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS and WARDEN LORETTO FCI
Raymond David v. Superintendent Dallas SCI, et al
as 24-1773
Plaintiff:
RAYMOND DAVID
Defendant:
SUPERINTENDENT DALLAS SCI, DISTRICT ATTORNEY PHILADELPHIA and ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA
Edgardo Rivera v. Superintendent Dallas SCI, et al
as 24-1750
Plaintiff:
EDGARDO SOBRADO RIVERA
Defendant:
SUPERINTENDENT DALLAS SCI and ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA
Russell Grimes v. State of Delaware, et al
as 24-1744
Plaintiff:
RUSSELL M. GRIMES
Defendant:
STATE OF DELAWARE and ATTORNEY GENERAL DELAWARE
Charles Sheppard v. Administrator New Jersey State Prison, et al
as 24-1697
Plaintiff:
CHARLES SHEPPARD
Defendant:
ADMINISTRATOR NEW JERSEY STATE PRISON and ATTORNEY GENERAL NEW JERSEY
Telly Royster v. Superintendent Phoenix SCI, et al
as 24-1698
Plaintiff:
TELLY ROYSTER
Defendant:
SUPERINTENDENT PHOENIX SCI, DISTRICT ATTORNEY PHILADELPHIA and ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA
Leeon Frasier v. Warden Coal Township SCI, et al
as 24-1675
Plaintiff:
LEEON ANTONIO FRASIER
Defendant:
WARDEN COAL TOWNSHIP SCI and ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA
Francis Boyd v. Superintendent Chester SCI, et al
as 24-1692
Petitioner:
FRANCIS BOYD
Respondent:
SUPERINTENDENT CHESTER SCI, ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA and DISTRICT ATTORNEY PHILADELPHIA
John Biddle v. Administrator New Jersey State Prison, et al
as 24-1661
Plaintiff:
JOHN W. BIDDLE
Defendant:
ADMINISTRATOR NEW JERSEY STATE PRISON and ATTORNEY GENERAL NEW JERSEY
Malik Bey v. Superintendent Somerset SCI, et al
as 24-1667
Plaintiff:
MALIK ABDUL BEY
Defendant:
SUPERINTENDENT SOMERSET SCI, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE 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.
