Cases 101 - 110 of 34,830
DE JESUS-RODRIGUEZ v. WARDEN, FCI FORT DIX
as 1:2024cv06498
Petitioner:
SATURNINO DE JESUS-RODRIGUEZ
Respondent:
WARDEN, FCI FORT DIX
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
MCNEIL-THOMAS v. DAVIS et al
as 2:2024cv06403
Petitioner:
RASUL MCNEIL-THOMAS
Respondent:
BRUCE DAVIS and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
HENSLEY v. CLOSE
as 1:2024cv00136
Petitioner:
JOSEPH GERALD HENSLEY
Respondent:
DAVID CLOSE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Alphonse v. Rickard
as 3:2024cv00855
Petitioner:
Jammy Alphonse
Respondent:
Warden Rickard
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Williams, Jr. v. Ogle et al
as 4:2024cv00853
Petitioner:
Sylvester Williams, Jr.
Respondent:
Adam Ogle and Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Ronald Davis v. Superintendent Forest SCI, et al
as 24-1958
Plaintiff:
RONALD DAVIS
Defendant:
SUPERINTENDENT FOREST SCI, DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY COUNTY and ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA
Nasir Elliott v. Attorney General Pennsylvania, et al
as 24-1959
Plaintiff:
NASIR ELLIOTT
Defendant:
ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA and SUPERINTENDENT GREENE SCI
Omar Miller v. Superintendent Rockview SCI
as 24-1947
Plaintiff:
OMAR MILLER
Defendant:
SUPERINTENDENT ROCKVIEW SCI
McCollum v. Brothers et al
as 1:2024cv00839
Petitioner:
Johnnie McCollum
Respondent:
Mark Brothers and Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Michael Reynolds v. Warden Schuylkill FCI, et al
as 24-1942
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL CURTIS REYNOLDS
Defendant:
WARDEN SCHUYLKILL FCI, UNITED STATES PROBATION OFFICE and DESIGNATION SENTENCE COMPUTATION CENTER
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.
