Cases 51 - 59 of 59
ANDERSON v. QUINTANA
as 1:2009cv00179
Petitioner:
ROBIN DESHAWN ANDERSON
Respondent:
FRANCISCO J. QUINTANA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Anderson v. Martinez
as 1:2009cv01113
Petitioner:
Anttine Anderson
Respondent:
Ricardo Martinez
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
ANDERSON v. BRITTON et al
as 2:2009cv00113
Petitioner:
MICHALE J. ANDERSON
Respondent:
RANDALL BRITTON, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
ANDERSON v. THE PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE et al
as 2:2008cv05408
Petitioner:
CARLTON F. ANDERSON
Respondent:
THE PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, DAIVD DIGUGLIELMO, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF _________________ and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
ANDERSON v. DELAWARE CORRECTIONAL CTR.
as 2:2008cv01383
Petitioner:
GEORGE W. ANDERSON
Respondent:
DELAWARE CORRECTIONAL CTR.
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
ANDERSON v. KING et al
as 2:2007cv02382
Petitioner:
CHARLES ANDERSON
Respondent:
LEON A. KING, II and DARRYL ANDERSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Anderson v. Lindsey
as 1:2007cv00577
Petitioner:
Bruce Anderson
Respondent:
Cameron Lindsey and Thomas Marino
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
ANDERSON v. DIGUGLIELMO et al
as 2:2007cv00795
Petitioner:
JAMES R. ANDERSON
Respondent:
DAVID DIGUGLIELMO, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF LYNNE ABRAHAM and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF TOM CORBETT
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Anderson v. United States Marshals
as 1:2007cv00048
Petitioner:
Anttine Anderson
Respondent:
United States Marshals
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
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.
