Cases 31 - 40 of 114
Daniel Carter v. Richard Miller
as 16-6353
Petitioner - Appellant:
DANIEL CARTER
Respondent - Appellee:
WARDEN RICHARD MILLER, DOUGLAS F. GANSLER, The Attorney General of the State of Maryland and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND
Powell v. Bishop
as 8:2016cv00378
Petitioner:
Darryl Powell
Respondent:
Frank B. Bishop, Jr. and Attorney General of Maryland
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Mark Gregory Handy, Sr. v. Frank B. Bishop, Jr.
as 15-8029
Petitioner - Appellant:
MARK GREGORY HANDY, SR.
Respondent - Appellee:
FRANK BISHOP, JR. and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND
Chatman v. Green
as 8:2015cv02827
Petitioner:
Johnny Chatman, Jr.
Respondent:
Kathleen Green and Office of the Attorney General of Maryland
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Broderick Patterson v. Wayne Webb
as 15-7398
Petitioner - Appellant:
BRODERICK PATTERSON
Respondent - Appellee:
WAYNE WEBB, Warden and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND
Michael Scott v. Kathleen Green
as 15-7072
Petitioner - Appellant:
MICHAEL ANDRE SCOTT
Respondent - Appellee:
WARDEN KATHLEEN GREEN and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND
Richard DeBlois v. Warden
as 15-6872
Petitioner - Appellant:
RICHARD DEBLOIS
Respondent - Appellee:
WARDEN and OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND
Gregory Marshall v. Ava Joubert
as 15-6335
Plaintiff - Appellant:
GREGORY MARSHALL
Defendant - Appellee:
DR. AVA JOUBERT, DR. COLIN OTTEY, DR. RIZVI SYED and others
Defendant:
LT. BRANDON BARNETT, CAPT. SHAW, WARDEN JOHN WOLF and others
Party-in-Interest:
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND
Emmanuel Sewell v. Office of the Attorney General
as 15-6316
Plaintiff - Appellant:
EMMANUEL EDWARD SEWELL
Defendant - Appellee:
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, WARDEN BOBBY SHEARIN, MAJOR MELLOTT and others
Stedman v. Corcoran
as 1:2015cv00230
Petitioner:
Merrick Barrington Stedman
Respondent:
Dayena Corcoran and Office of the Attorney General of Maryland
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.