Cases 1 - 10 of 13
FREEMAN v. ESTOCK et al
as 2:2022cv00346
Petitioner:
CHRISTOPHER FREEMAN
Respondent:
LEE ESTOCK, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
FREEMAN v. WETZEL et al
as 2:2017cv01506
Plaintiff:
GARRETT FREEMAN
Defendant:
JOHN E. WETZEL , ERIC BUSH , STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION PINE GROVE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
MAY v. TYWALK et al
as 2:2016cv00130
Plaintiff:
FREEMAN WILLIAM MAY
Defendant:
JOHN C. TYWALK, DAVID ARNOLD, JR., STEWART LEV and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
COVERT v. FREEMAN et al
as 1:2014cv00309
Plaintiff:
JOHN COVERT
Defendant:
FREEMAN, BYERS, CROSBY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
MAY v. TYLWALK et al
as 2:2014cv01340
Plaintiff:
FREEMAN W. MAY
Defendant:
JOHN C. TYLWALK, ROBERT J. EBY, BRADFORD H. CHARLES and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
FREEMAN v. PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE et al
as 2:2014cv01174
Petitioner:
KENDALL FREEMAN
Respondent:
PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE , ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF GREENE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
FREEMAN v. UNITED STATES DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY
as 2:2014cv01106
Plaintiff:
MONTEZ FREEMAN
Defendant:
UNITED STATES DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
FREEMAN v. USA
as 2:2014cv00272
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
MONTEZ FREEMAN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
STOKES v. RISKUS et al
as 1:2014cv00060
Plaintiff:
MAURICE STOKES
Defendant:
RISKUS, SETNEK, JOHN DOE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BANKS v. HARPER et al
as 2:2012cv01850
Plaintiff:
TONY BANKS
Defendant:
NATE HARPER, FREEMAN, SMELTZ and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
