Cases 1 - 10 of 26
Darling v. Webber et al
as 1:2024cv01183
Petitioner:
Deshaune D. Darling
Respondent:
Webber and Maryland Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Deshaune Darling v. Webber
as 23-7221
Petitioner / Appellant:
DESHAUNE D. DARLING
Respondent / Appellee:
WEBBER, Warden
Joshua Jordan v. SC Corrections Office of Investigations
as 23-7211
Petitioner / Appellant:
JOSHUA BRYAN JORDAN
Respondent / Appellee:
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS AND INTELLIGENCE, MATTHEW B. WATSON and RICHARD M. DARLING
Jordan v. South Carolina Department of Corrections (S.C.D.C.) Office of Investigations and Intelligence (O.I.I.) et al
as 1:2023cv04720
Petitioner:
Joshua Bryan Jordan
Respondent:
South Carolina Department of Corrections (S.C.D.C.) Office of Investigations and Intelligence (O.I.I.), Matt Watson and Richard A. Darling
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Darling v. Boncher
as 1:2022cv11664
Petitioner:
Joseph Darling
Respondent:
Amy Boncher
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Darling v. Webber
as 1:2022cv00978
Petitioner:
Deshaune D. Darling
Respondent:
Webber
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Darling v. Warden, FCI Jesup-Medium
as 2:2019cv00128
Petitioner:
Edgar Carl Darling, III
Respondent:
Warden, FCI Jesup-Medium
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
DARLING v. INCH
as 1:2019cv00149
Respondent:
MARK S INCH
Petitioner:
REGINALD W DARLING
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Darling v. Canyon County Jail et al
as 1:2019cv00085
Respondent:
City of Nampa Police Dept and Canyon County Jail
Petitioner:
Timothy P Darling
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Darling v. Lazaroff
as 1:2018cv01743
Petitioner:
Tevaughn Darling
Respondent:
Warden Al Lazaroff
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.
