Cases 1 - 10 of 51
Ray Blanchard v. Brian Frosh
as 24-6473
Plaintiff:
RAY A. BLANCHARD
Defendant:
BRIAN E. FROSH, MCTC WARDEN and WILLIAM BOHRER
Ray Blanchard v. Brian Frosh
as 24-6372
Petitioner:
RAY A. BLANCHARD
Respondent:
BRIAN E. FROSH, Attorney General for the State of Maryland and WARDEN GREGORY WERNER
Wright v. Warden of Eastern Correctional Institution et al
as 1:2023cv00111
Petitioner:
William Wright
Respondent:
Warden of Eastern Correctional Institution and Brian E. Frosh
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Blanchard v. Frosh
as 1:2023cv00074
Plaintiff:
Ray Blanchard
Defendant:
Mr. Brian E. Frosh
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Jerez Coleman v. Christina Tyler
as 22-7333
Petitioner / Appellant:
JEREZ COLEMAN
Respondent / Appellee:
CHRISTINA TYLER, TERRY KOCALIS and BRIAN E. FROSH
Ervin Bellamy v. Kevin Guistwite
as 22-7128
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ERVIN BELLAMY
Defendant / Appellee:
KEVIN P. GUISTWITE, Executive Director, Child Support Administration, GLORIA BROWN, SAMANTHA PHILLIPS-CHESTER and others
Jeremiah Sweeney v. Richard Graham, Jr.
as 22-6513
Petitioner / Appellant:
JEREMIAH ANTOINE SWEENEY
Respondent / Appellee:
RICHARD J. GRAHAM, JR., Warden, Western Correctional Institution and BRIAN E. FROSH, Maryland Attorney General
Coleman v. Smith et al
as 1:2022cv00646
Plaintiff:
Arthur Coleman
Defendant:
Christopher Smith and Brian E. Frosh
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Melvin v. Werner et al
as 1:2022cv00395
Petitioner:
Taron Melvin
Respondent:
Warden Greg Werner and Brian E. Frosh
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Dame v. Smith et al
as 1:2021cv03038
Petitioner:
Francois Nguessi Dame
Respondent:
Warden Christopher Smith and Attorney General Brian E. Frosh
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.
