Cases 1 - 10 of 64
Forbes v. United States of America
as 1:2024cv00194
Petitioner:
Dennis A. Forbes
Respondent:
United States of America and Warden, FCI McDowell
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Forbes v. Wade
as 1:2023cv01023
Petitioner:
Khiraje Quindel Forbes
Respondent:
Matthew Wade
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Mendy Read-Forbes v. K. Bennett
as 23-1775
Petitioner / Appellant:
MENDY READ-FORBES
Respondent / Appellee:
K. BENNETT, Warden
Forbes v. Florida Department of Corrections
as 0:2023cv60672
Plaintiff:
Denaldo Forbes
Defendant:
Florida Department of Corrections
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Forbes v. Florida Department of Corrections
as 0:2023cv60597
Plaintiff:
Denaldo Forbes
Defendant:
Florida Department of Corrections
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
FORBES v. MURPHY et al
as 2:2023cv00550
Petitioner:
TIMOTHY J. FORBES, JR.
Respondent:
MARGARET T. MURPHY, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Lamar Forbes v. Carlos Del Toro, et al
as 23-5012
Petitioner / Appellant:
Lamar A. Forbes
Respondent / Appellee:
Thomas W. Harker, Secretary of the Navy, Carlos Del Toro, Secretary of the Navy and Randall Lamoureux, President, Naval Clemency and Parole Board
Forbes v. Zook et al
as 3:2022cv00582
Petitioner:
Michael Ray Forbes
Respondent:
R Zook and F J Garrido
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Forbes v. Leu
as 5:2021hc02255
Petitioner:
Stephen Lee Forbes
Respondent:
Warden D. Leu
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Forbes v. USA
as 7:2021cv00077
Petitioner:
Dennis A. Forbes
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
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.
