Cases 31 - 40 of 43
Williams v. Varano et al
as 3:2012cv00234
Petitioner:
Charles D Williams
Respondent:
David Varano and PA State Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Williams v. Treasure Coast Treatment Center et al
as 1:2010cv24298
Plaintiff:
Charles H. Williams
Defendant:
Treasure Coast Treatment Center , George Gentoli, George Zatoli and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Charles Williams v. Stuart Ryan, et al
as 10-56605
Petitioner - Appellant:
CHARLES ANDREW WILLIAMS
Respondent - Appellee:
STUART J. RYAN and CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Charles Williams v. Anthony Malfi
as 10-15091
Petitioner - Appellant:
CHARLES LEE WILLIAMS
Respondent - Appellee:
ANTHONY J. MALFI
Williams v. Walker
as 3:2009cv03194
Petitioner:
Charles Lee Williams
Respondent:
James Walker
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Charles Williams, Jr. v. M. Martel, et al
as 09-16012
Petitioner - Appellant:
CHARLES DAVID WILLIAMS, Jr.
Respondent - Appellee:
M. MARTEL, Warden, Mule Creek State Prison and MATTHEW CATE, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Williams v. Martel et al
as 1:2008cv01336
Petitioner:
Charles David Williams, Jr.
Respondent:
Mike Martel and Matthew Cate
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Williams v. Quarterman
as 08-20004
Petitioner - Appellant:
CHARLES EDWARD WILLIAMS
Respondent - Appellee:
NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION
Williams v. Paterson et al
as 1:2007cv00682
Petitioner:
Charles Curtis Williams
Respondent:
Tony Paterson and Troy King
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Williams v. Quarterman
as 4:2007cv02794
Petitioner:
Charles Edward Williams
Respondent:
Nathaniel Quarterman
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
