Cases 1 - 10 of 18
Cargill v. Warden Healy
as 4:2024cv01280
Respondent:
Warden Ian Healy
Petitioner:
Tammeco A. Cargill
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Cargill v. Warden Healy
as 4:2023cv01755
Petitioner:
Tammeco A. Cargill
Respondent:
Warden Healy
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Cargill v. Barron
as 2:2023cv01304
Petitioner:
Quincetta Yvonne Cargill
Respondent:
Howard C Barron
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Cargill v. Jacquez
as 2:2022cv01288
Petitioner:
Quincetta Y Cargill
Respondent:
Israel Jacquez
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Quincetta Cargill v. Israel Jacquez
as 22-35671
Petitioner / Appellant:
QUINCETTA Y. CARGILL
Respondent / Appellee:
ISRAEL JACQUEZ, Warden, Federal Detention Center - SeaTac
Cargill v. Jacquez
as 2:2022cv01159
Petitioner:
Quincetta Yvonne Cargill
Respondent:
Israel Jacquez
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Quincetta Cargill v. Alabama, State of, et al
as 22-10269
Petitioner / Appellant:
QUINCETTA Y. CARGILL
Respondent / Appellee:
STATE OF ALABAMA and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA, THE
Cargill v. U.S. Sentencing Commission
as 2:2020cv01066
Respondent:
Attorney General of Alabama and U.S. Sentencing Commission
Petitioner:
Quincetta Y Cargill
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Cargill v. Alabama, State of et al
as 2:2019cv01339
Respondent:
Alabama, State of and Attorney General for the State of Alabama, The
Petitioner:
Quincetta Y Cargill
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
CARGILE v. GILMORE et al
as 2:2019cv00239
Petitioner:
BRANDON CARGILE
Respondent:
SUPERINTENDENT ROBERT GILMORE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PENNSYLVANIA and THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY
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.