Cases 1 - 10 of 18
James Nottingham v. Attorney General Pennsylvania
as 22-3304
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JAMES E. NOTTINGHAM
Defendant / Appellee:
ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA
Nottingham v. Clarke
as 3:2022cv00742
Petitioner:
Rakim Nottingham
Respondent:
Harold Clarke
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Nottingham v. Harry et al
as 3:2020cv01318
Respondent:
Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office and Laurel Harry
Petitioner:
James E. Nottingham
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Nottingham et al v. Harry et al
as 3:2019cv01949
Respondent:
Jeanna Longo, Kenneth Osokow, Anthony Ciuca and others
Petitioner:
James E. Nottingham and William Haight
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Nottingham v. Davis-Director TDCJ-CID
as 2:2019cv00095
Petitioner:
Jay Anthony Nottingham
Respondent:
Lorie Davis-Director TDCJ-CID and Director TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Nottingham v. Director TDCJ-CID
as 6:2019cv00178
Petitioner:
Jay Anthony Nottingham
Respondent:
Director TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Nottingham v. Gray et al
as 4:2018cv02002
Respondent:
PA Attorney General, Nancy Butts and Richard A. Gray
Petitioner:
James E. Nottingham
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Nottingham v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 3:2016225500007
Petitioner:
Monte James Nottingham
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Nottingham v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 3:2016225500006
Petitioner:
Monte James Nottingham
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Jay Nottingham v. State of Texas, et al
as 14-10794
Petitioner - Appellant:
JAY ANTHONY NOTTINGHAM
Respondent - Appellee:
STATE OF TEXAS and WILLIAM STEPHENS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION
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.
