Cases 21 - 30 of 92
Carnell Gibbs v. Greg Bartkowski, et al
as 13-2242
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CARNELL GIBBS
Defendant - Appellee:
GREG BARTKOWSKI, ATTORNEY GENERAL NEW JERSEY and CHARLES WARREN
STEVENS v. WARREN et al
as 2:2013cv02831
Petitioner:
ANTIONE STEVENS
Respondent:
CHARLES WARREN and JEFFREY CHIESA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
SAUNDERS v. WARREN et al
as 2:2013cv02794
Petitioner:
AL-MUTAH SAUNDERS
Respondent:
CHARLES WARREN and JEFFREY S. CHIESA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
LYGA v. WARREN
as 3:2013cv02657
Petitioner:
MIKE LYGA
Respondent:
CHARLES WARREN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
BROOKS v. WARREN et al
as 2:2013cv02545
Petitioner:
JEROME BROOKS
Respondent:
CHARLES WARREN and JEFFERY CHIESA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Al Shamoon Thompson v. Charles Warren, et al
as 13-2065
Plaintiff - Appellant:
AL SHAMOON THOMPSON
Defendant - Appellee:
CHARLES WARREN and ATTORNEY GENERAL NEW JERSEY
TOLEDO v. WARREN
as 3:2013cv02457
Petitioner:
RICHARD TOLEDO
Respondent:
CHARLES WARREN, JR. and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Angel Martinez v. Charles Warren, et al
as 13-1921
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ANGEL MARTINEZ
Defendant - Appellee:
CHARLES WARREN, Administrator and ATTORNEY GENERAL NEW JERSEY
Adonis Thomas v. Charles Warren, et al
as 13-1691
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ADONIS D. THOMAS
Defendant - Appellee:
CHARLES WARREN, Administrator and ATTORNEY GENERAL NEW JERSEY
CAGNO v. WARREN et al
as 3:2013cv01551
Petitioner:
AURELIO RAY CAGNO
Respondent:
CHARLES WARREN and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
