Cases 31 - 40 of 66
Sanchez v. Capozza et al
as 1:2018cv00930
Respondent:
Mark Capozza and PA State Attorney General
Petitioner:
Oracio Sanchez, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Sanchez-Angeles v. United States of America et al
as 3:2017cv02412
Petitioner:
Jose F. Sanchez-Angeles
Respondent:
United States of America, J. Baltazar and United States Penitentiary Canaan
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Sanchez v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 4:2017cv02374
Petitioner:
Jaime Fernando Sanchez
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
SANCHEZ v. LYNCH et al
as 3:2017cv00215
Petitioner:
FERNANDO SANCHEZ
Respondent:
LORETTA E. LYNCH and UNITED STATES MARSHAL SERVICE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
SANCHEZ v. TAYLOR et al
as 1:2017cv07732
Petitioner:
JOSE A. SANCHEZ
Respondent:
KAREN TAYLOR and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
SANCHEZ v. WARDEN ORTIZ
as 1:2017cv00274
Petitioner:
JAIME SANCHEZ
Respondent:
WARDEN ORTIZ
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
SANCHEZ-HERNANDEZ v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 1:2016cv09025
Petitioner:
ARNULFO SANCHEZ-HERNANDEZ
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
SANCHEZ v. LYNCH et al
as 3:2016cv00226
Petitioner:
FERNANDO SANCHEZ
Respondent:
LORETTA E. LYNCH and UNITED STATES MARSHAL SERVICE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
HERNANDEZ v. MASON et al
as 1:2016cv03922
Petitioner:
ARNULFO SANCHEZ HERNANDEZ
Respondent:
L. MASON and DAVID ORTIZ
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
SANCHEZ v. WETZEL et al
as 2:2015cv05303
Petitioner:
CARLOS A. SANCHEZ
Respondent:
JOHN WETZEL, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
