Cases 1 - 10 of 13
SPURILL v. TRITT et al
as 2:2017cv00201
Petitioner:
LAMAR TYREE SPURILL
Respondent:
BRENDA TRITT, R. SETH WILLIAMS and KATHLEEN G. KANE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
BETHEA v. MOONEY et al
as 2:2016cv00807
Petitioner:
TERRENCE BETHEA
Respondent:
VINCENT MOONEY, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF KATHLEEN G. KANE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
ELLISON v. GARMAN et al
as 2:2016cv00775
Petitioner:
LAMONT ELLISON
Respondent:
MARK GARMAN, SETH WILLIAMS and KATHLEEN G. KANE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
NELSON v. WARDEN, SCI PINE GROVE et al
as 2:2015cv04351
Petitioner:
JAMES NELSON
Respondent:
WARDEN, SCI PINE GROVE and KATHLEEN G. KANE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
SALEEM-BEY v. HOLDER et al
as 2:2015mc00131
Plaintiff:
YAHYA SALEEM-BEY
Defendant:
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., JOHN KERRY, JOHN JAY HOFFMAN and others
Cause Of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case
Type:
Other Statutes
RODRIGUEZ v. THOMAS et al
as 5:2015cv01679
Petitioner:
SAMUEL F. RODRIGUEZ
Respondent:
JOHN THOMAS and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF KATHLEEN G. KANE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
GONZALEZ v. BUSH et. al.
as 2:2014cv06635
Petitioner:
JULIO GONZALEZ
Respondent:
ERIC BUSH and KATHLEEN G. KANE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
THOMASON v. PITKINS et al
as 2:2014cv04039
Petitioner:
ANTHONY THOMASON
Respondent:
DAVID PITKINS, R. SETH WILLIAMS and KATHLEEN G. KANE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
JONES v. KANE et al
as 2:2014cv04003
Plaintiff:
MAURICE JONES
Defendant:
KATHLEEN G. KANE, JOHN E. WETZEL and MICHAEL C. POTTEIGER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
JONES v. GLUNT et al
as 2:2014cv01153
Petitioner:
CURTIS RODNEY JONES
Respondent:
GLUNT and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA KATHLEEN G. KANE
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.
