Cases 1 - 10 of 51
SWIFT v. THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE et al
as 1:2022cv00240
Petitioner:
ZAMAR BER SWIFT
Respondent:
THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE and WARDEN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Swift v. Warden
as 3:2022cv00180
Petitioner:
Adrian Swift
Respondent:
Warden
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
SWIFT v. WARDEN
as 3:2021cv00168
Petitioner:
CHARLES R. SWIFT, JR.
Respondent:
WARDEN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
SWIFT v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA et al
as 1:2021cv00243
Petitioner:
DONNIE JAVON SWIFT
Respondent:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, JOHN EDWARD WETZEL, SUPERINTENDENT DEREK OBERLANDER and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Swift v. Warden of the Douglas County Correction Center
as 8:2020cv00354
Respondent:
Warden of the Douglas County Correction Center
Petitioner:
Ingerat Swift
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Swift v. Warden
as 3:2019cv00311
Respondent:
Warden
Petitioner:
David A Swift
Not Yet Classified:
WESTVILLE E-FILE(Court Use Only)
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Swift v. Warden
as 3:2018cv00867
Respondent:
Warden
Petitioner:
David A Swift
Undetermined:
WESTVILLE E-FILE(Court Use Only)
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Swift v. Superintendent
as 9:2018cv01204
Respondent:
Joseph H. Noah and Superintendent
Petitioner:
Lewis Swift
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Dennis Davis, Jr. v. Public Defenders Bd Caddo Prsh, et al
as 18-30934
Petitioner - Appellant:
DENNIS RAY DAVIS, JR.
Respondent - Appellee:
PUBLIC DEFENDERS BOARD CADDO PARISH, PAMELA J. SMART, JAY DIXON and others
Dennis Davis, Jr. v. Public Defenders Bd Caddo Prsh, et al
as 18-30845
Petitioner - Appellant:
DENNIS RAY DAVIS, JR.
Respondent - Appellee:
PUBLIC DEFENDERS BOARD CADDO PARISH, PAMELA J. SMART, JAY DIXON and others
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.
