Cases 51 - 60 of 71
SMITH v. RILEY et al
as 2:2010cv02397
Plaintiff:
DEVON A. SMITH
Defendant:
RILEY, BANKS, MCCANN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BLOUNT et al v. FOLINO
as 2:2010cv00697
Plaintiff:
REGINALD BLOUNT and NATHAN RILEY
Defendant:
LOUIS FOLINO
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
THOMASTON v. DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF PHILADELPHIA et al
as 2:2010cv00957
Petitioner:
MICHAEL THOMASTON
Respondent:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF PHILADELPHIA, BRIAN V. COLEMAN, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF MR. PAUL RILEY PHILA. COUNTY and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
RILEY v. CURRAN-FROMHOLD CORRECTIONAL FACILITY (C.F.C.F.)
as 2:2010cv00213
Plaintiff:
ALONZO RILEY
Defendant:
CURRAN-FROMHOLD CORRECTIONAL FACILITY (C.F.C.F.)
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
RILEY v. BRILHARDT et al
as 3:2010cv00004
Petitioner:
GEORGE RILEY, JR.
Respondent:
MICHAEL BRILHARDT, MICHAEL BARRASSE, LEROY ZIMMERMAN and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Riley v. Brilhardt et al
as 3:2009cv02402
Petitioner:
George Riley, Jr.
Respondent:
Michael Brilhardt, Michael Barrasse, Leroy Zimmerman and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Riley v. Brarasse
as 3:2009cv02401
Plaintiff:
George Riley, Jr.
Defendant:
Ruzo and Michael Barrasse
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
RILEY v. QUINTANA et al
as 1:2009cv00138
Petitioner:
ALI RILEY
Respondent:
FRANCISCO J. QUINTANA and SCOTT DODRILL
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Riley v. Beard et al
as 3:2009cv00230
Plaintiff:
Nathan Riley
Defendant:
Jeffrey A. Beard, -, John Palakovich, Harker and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
RILEY v. BEARD
as 2:2008cv01675
Plaintiff:
NATHAN RILEY
Defendant:
JEFFREY A. BEARD
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
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.
