Cases 21 - 30 of 30
Nguyen v. Hufford
as 3:2011cv01920
Petitioner:
Bob Nguyen
Respondent:
H.L. Hufford
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
NGUYEN v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
as 2:2011cv04558
Respondent:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Petitioner:
CHRISTOPHER NGUYEN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
VU v. WETZEL et al
as 2:2011cv03226
Petitioner:
NGUYEN VU
Respondent:
JOHN E. WETZEL, LOUIS FOLINO and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
NGUYEN v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 2:2010cv05516
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL NGUYEN
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
Nguyen v. Franklin County Sheriffs Department et al
as 3:2010cv01866
Plaintiff:
Tri Thanh Nguyen
Defendant:
Franklin County Sheriffs Department, Stroble, Carter and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
NGUYEN v. WARDEN/DELANEY et al
as 2:2010cv03962
Plaintiff:
LOEI NGUYEN
Defendant:
WARDEN/DELANEY, PHILADELPHIA PRISON, CURRAN FROMHOLD CORRECTIONAL FACILITY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Nguyen v. Holder et al
as 3:2010cv01006
Petitioner:
Hoang Nguyen
Respondent:
Eric H. Holder, Jr., Janet Napolitano, Thomas Decker and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
VU v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al
as 2:2010cv00953
Plaintiff:
NGUYEN VU
Defendant:
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, JASON JOHN KEGEL, COREY ANTHONY MATTES and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
NGUYEN v. FOLINO et al
as 2:2009cv04977
Petitioner:
TAM C. NGUYEN
Respondent:
LOUIS S. FOLINO, D.A. OF PHILA. CTY. and ATTY. GEN. OF PA.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Nguyen v. Mukasey et al
as 1:2008cv01665
Petitioner:
Loc Tien Nguyen
Respondent:
Michael Mukasey, Michael Chertoff, Thomas Decker and others
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
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.
