Cases 1 - 10 of 10
FORBES v. MURPHY et al
as 2:2023cv00550
Petitioner:
TIMOTHY J. FORBES, JR.
Respondent:
MARGARET T. MURPHY, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Forbes v. Kozich et al
as 3:2021cv02115
Plaintiff:
Jordan Forbes
Defendant:
C.O. Kozich, C.O. Erdman, C.O. Testen and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Forbes v. USA
as 1:2017cv01012
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
Timothy Forbes
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
RIVERA v. (CHESTER COUNTY) MUNICIPLE et al
as 2:2015cv05609
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL A RIVERA
Defendant:
(CHESTER COUNTY) MUNICIPLE, MARCONI, MATTHEW JONES and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Harinarain v. Lowe et al
as 3:2009cv00907
Plaintiff:
Harish Harinarain, Sr.
Defendant:
Craig Lowe, Jonathan Romance, Jay Rose and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1343 Violation of Civil Rights
FORBES v. DIGUGLIELMO et al
as 2:2009cv01256
Petitioner:
MICHAEL FORBES
Respondent:
DAVID DIGUGLIELMO, JEFFREY BEARD and CATHERINE MCVEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Forbes v. USA
as 1:2009cv00491
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
Michael D. Forbes
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
BAKER v. WILLIAMSON et al
as 1:2007cv02220
Plaintiff:
Darryl Orrin Baker
Defendant:
Troy Williamson, Staff at lewisburg camp, Angilini and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
BAKER v. WILLIAMSON et al
as 1:2007cv00321
Plaintiff:
DARRYL ORRIN BAKER
Defendant:
TROY WILLIAMSON, STAFF AT LEWISBURG CAMP, ANGILINI and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
BANKS v. FADDEN et al
as 2:2007cv00967
Plaintiff:
MAURICE O'NEAL BANKS
Defendant:
FADDEN, MR., GRAMM, FARINA and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
