Cases 11 - 20 of 69
ARMSTRONG v. SUPERINTENDENT et al
as 2:2020cv05012
Petitioner:
ANTHONY ARMSTRONG
Respondent:
SUPERINTENDENT, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Armstrong v. Dauphin County Prison
as 1:2020cv01282
Plaintiff:
Tyrone Armstrong
Defendant:
Dauphin County Prison
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Armstrong v. Briggs et al
as 1:2020cv01170
Respondent:
Warden Gregory Briggs and PA Attorney General
Petitioner:
Tyrone Armstrong
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
ARMSTRONG v. CARR et al
as 3:2020cv00041
Defendant:
MISHLER, TIPTON, S. WIGGINS and others
Plaintiff:
KAREEM ARMSTRONG
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
ARMSTRONG v. BRITTAIN et al
as 2:2019cv05210
Petitioner:
JAMES ARMSTRONG
Respondent:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, KATHY BRITTAIN and THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF DELAWARE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
ARMSTRONG v. FURMAN et al
as 3:2019cv00141
Plaintiff:
KAREEM ARMSTRONG
Defendant:
CAPTAIN JOSEPH FURMAN and JOSEPH DUPONT
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
ARMSTRONG v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 1:2019cv00086
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Petitioner:
AMOS ARMSTRONG
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
KAMMERDIENER v. ARMSTRONG COUNTY et al
as 2:2018cv01484
Defendant:
ERIKA KIRKPATRICK, ARMSTRONG COUNTY, PHILLIP SHAFFER and others
Plaintiff:
RONALD E. KAMMERDIENER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
ARMSTRONG v. MAHALLAY et al
as 2:2018cv04256
Respondent:
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PENNSYLVANIA, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PA and LAWRENCE MAHALLAY
Petitioner:
RAYMOND ARMSTRONG
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
ARMSTRONG v. LUTHER et al
as 3:2018cv00086
Petitioner:
JEROME ARMSTRONG
Respondent:
JAMEY P. LUTHER and JOSH SHAPIRO
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.
