Cases 1 - 10 of 18
BUTLER v. BRADLEY et al
as 1:2021cv00491
Respondent:
Bonshok and Sergeant Bradley
Petitioner:
John D. Butler
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
BUTLER v. BRADLEY et al
as 2:2020cv06438
Respondent:
BONSHOK and BRADLEY
Petitioner:
JOHN D. BUTLER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
SUTTON v. CLARK
as 1:2019cv00214
Petitioner:
JOHN D. SUTTON
Respondent:
MICHAEL CLARK
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
SIMMONS v. WETZEL et al
as 2:2017cv03704
Petitioner:
AUGUSTUS SIMMONS
Respondent:
JOHN D. WETZEL, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
SUTTON v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA et al
as 1:2017cv00109
Petitioner:
JOHN D. SUTTON
Respondent:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, MICHAEL CLARK and DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF CRAWFORD COUNTY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Parker v. Warden
as 3:2017cv00765
Petitioner:
John D. Parker
Respondent:
Warden
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
WILLIAMSON v. FISHER et al
as 2:2014cv05964
Petitioner:
BOBBY KENNETH WILLIAMSON
Respondent:
JOHN D. FISHER, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF KATHLEEN KANE and DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
KING v. FISHER et al
as 2:2014cv05150
Petitioner:
IVORY KING
Respondent:
JOHN D. FISHER, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF BUCKS and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF STATE OF P.A.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
MUNOZ v. FISHER et al
as 2:2013cv07270
Petitioner:
JORGE L. MUNOZ
Respondent:
JOHN D. FISHER, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
WILSON v. LAMAS et al
as 2:2013cv00651
Petitioner:
JOHN D. WILSON
Respondent:
MARIROSA LAMAS and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
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.
