Cases 61 - 70 of 34,806
PEREZ v. MERENDINO
as 1:2024cv06508
Petitioner:
MARCO PEREZ
Respondent:
STEVEN MERENDINO
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
SARKISOV v. PETERS et al
as 3:2024cv00115
Petitioner:
EDUARD SARKISOV
Respondent:
DIR. BOP COLETT PETERS and WARDEN MICHAEL UNDERWOOD
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Vincent Pisciotta v. Warden Fort Dix FCI
as 24-1986
Plaintiff:
VINCENT PISCIOTTA
Defendant:
WARDEN FORT DIX FCI
Calvin Lynch v. Superintendent Rockview SCI, et al
as 24-1972
Plaintiff:
CALVIN B. LYNCH
Defendant:
SUPERINTENDENT ROCKVIEW SCI, ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA and DISTRICT ATTORNEY LANCASTER COUNTY
BELL v. WARDEN et al
as 2:2024cv06504
Petitioner:
KENT BELL
Respondent:
WARDEN, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, JUDGE FRANCIS A. MCGROGAN and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
HILL-PRICE v. MASON et al
as 2:2024cv02329
Petitioner:
TYRALE JEROME HILL-PRICE
Respondent:
MASON, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUUNTY OF CUMBERLAND and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
JOHNSON v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
as 2:2024cv02314
Petitioner:
SOLOMON JOHNSON
Respondent:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
IN RE: RASHAAN BATES
as 2:2024cv02325
Petitioner:
RASHAAN BATES
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
EUCEDA-CANALES v. WARDEN THOMPSON
as 1:2024cv06415
Petitioner:
MELVIN EUCEDA-CANALES
Respondent:
WARDEN THOMPSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
BARKER v. R. THOMPSON
as 1:2024cv06432
Petitioner:
BRANDON EARL BARKER
Respondent:
R. THOMPSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
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.
