Cases 21 - 30 of 126
ISAAC v. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTER ET AL
as 2:2019cv04542
Respondent:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTER
Petitioner:
PRINCE ISAAC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2019cv02387
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e
WOODEN v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al
as 2:2019cv01054
Defendant:
BARRY CHARLES, EUGENE KITTLES, DONALD CAIN and others
Plaintiff:
RAYMOND CENAKA WOODEN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
PRINCE v. DE FACTO IMPLEMATION OF LAW et al
as 2:2019cv00063
Defendant:
ALL SATELLITE ORGANIZATIONS, DE FACTO IMPLEMATION OF LAW, REPUBLICAN AA NATIONAL COMMITT and others
Plaintiff:
DARRELL SANFORD PRINCE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DAVIS v. SMITH et al
as 2:2018cv01956
Petitioner:
PRINCE DAVIS
Respondent:
BARRY SMITH, 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
OSEI v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 2:2018mc00063
Petitioner:
KWARTENG PRINCE OSEI
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: Motion for Order
Type:
Other Statutes
OSEI-KWARTENG
as 2:2018cv00292
Petitioner:
PRINCE OSEI-KWARTENG
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
PRINCE v. MCCONNELL et al
as 2:2017cv01594
Plaintiff:
DARRELL PRINCE
Defendant:
MITCH MCCONNELL, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT and PAUL RYAN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ISAAC v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 5:2017cv00906
Plaintiff:
PRINCE ISAAC
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
PRINCE v. US GOVERNMENT et al
as 2:2016cv06702
Plaintiff:
DARRELL PRINCE
Defendant:
US GOVERNMENT, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, SUPREME COURT UNITED STATES 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.
