Cases 1 - 10 of 12
BOWEN v. ZAKEN
as 2:2023cv02253
Petitioner:
DWIGHT BOWEN
Respondent:
MICHAEL ZAKEN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
BOWEN v. IRWIN et al
as 2:2023cv00956
Petitioner:
NORMAN BOWEN
Respondent:
RANDY IRWIN, 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 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
PEW v. LITTLE et al
as 2:2022cv01488
Plaintiff:
ALFONSO PERCY PEW
Defendant:
GEORGE LITTLE, ULLI KLEMM, SORBER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Bowens v. McGinley et al
as 2:2021cv02519
Respondent:
THOMAS MCGINLEY and PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
Petitioner:
David Bowens
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
BOWEN v. LEHIGH COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS et al
as 5:2019cv04646
Respondent:
LEHIGH COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS and LEHIGH COUNTY ADULT PROBATION
Petitioner:
JACOB EARL BOWEN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
MURPHY et al v. ALGARIN et al
as 2:2018cv04207
Plaintiff:
ALEXANDER MAXWELL CHILCOTE, ADAM LOGAL, SHAMARR CHANDLER and others
Defendant:
JOHN DOES, WARDEN ALGARIN, DEPUTY WARDEN MURRAY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BOWENS v. MATTHEWS et al
as 2:2017cv04800
Plaintiff:
JOSHUA BOWENS
Defendant:
MATTHEWS, MATT, MARTIN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
HENRY v. WRIGHT et al
as 2:2017cv02288
Plaintiff:
DWAYNE HENRY
Defendant:
WRIGHT, BOWENS, HOLMES and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BOWENS v. LINK et al
as 2:2017cv01366
Plaintiff:
JOSHUA BOWENS
Defendant:
CYNTHIA LINK, JOSEPH C. KORSZNIAK, MARTINEZ and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BOWENS v. EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
as 2:2014cv02689
Plaintiff:
MONTEZ M. BOWENS
Defendant:
EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, JOHN WETEL, KLOPOTOSKI and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
