Cases 1 - 10 of 20
MENDEZ v. WARDEN THOMPSON
as 1:2023cv21659
Petitioner:
RUDI RENE MENDEZ
Respondent:
WARDEN THOMPSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
MENDEZ v. ACTING WARDEN CRUZ
as 1:2023cv16612
Petitioner:
RUDI MENDEZ
Respondent:
ACTING WARDEN CRUZ
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
DAVIS v. CAPOZZA et al
as 2:2017cv01152
Petitioner:
RUDY DAVIS
Respondent:
MARK CAPOZZA, ALLEGHENY COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
MENDOZA v. THOMPSON et al
as 2:2015cv00191
Petitioner:
RUDY MENDOZA
Respondent:
BRIAN H. THOMPSON and REBECCA CALISTI
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Gonzalez v. Baltazar
as 1:2014cv02164
Petitioner:
Rudi Gonzalez
Respondent:
Juan Baltazar
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
PUENTES-CANALES v. WIGGINS
as 3:2014cv00133
Petitioner:
RUDY ISMAEL PUENTES-CANALES
Respondent:
GEORGE WIGGINS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
UNDERDUE v. NELSON et al
as 1:2013cv06497
Petitioner:
RUDY V. UNDERDUE
Respondent:
KENNETH NELSON and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
UNDERDUE v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY et al
as 1:2013cv05486
Petitioner:
RUDY UNDERDUE
Respondent:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY and WARDEN SOUTH WOODS STATE PRISON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Rudis Moreira v. Frank Gillis, et al
as 13-1696
Plaintiff - Appellant:
RUDIS MOREIRA
Defendant - Appellee:
FRANK GILLIS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY PHILADELPHIA and ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA
Naranjo v. Warden, USP Lewisburg
as 3:2012cv02612
Petitioner:
Rudy Naranjo
Respondent:
Warden, USP Lewisburg
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.
