Cases 1 - 10 of 24
Smith, Sr. v. McGinley et al
as 3:2023cv01456
Plaintiff:
Mark E. Smith, Sr.
Defendant:
Thomas S. McGinley
Respondent:
District Attorney of Monroe County and Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
SMITH
as 2:2021cv05001
In Re:
CHARLES E. SMITH and CHARLES E. SMITH, JR.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
SMITH v. DAUPHIN COUNTY DOMESTICS
as 2:2021cv00439
Plaintiff:
CHARLES E. SMITH
Defendant:
DAUPHIN COUNTY DOMESTICS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SMITH v. ALTERNATIVE COUNSELING SERVICES et al
as 2:2021cv00076
Defendant:
CARLOS SAUL, MIKE GREENBURG, ALTERNATIVE COUNSELING SERVICES and others
Plaintiff:
CHARLES E. SMITH
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Smith v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al
as 1:2018cv00838
Petitioner:
Charles E. Smith
Respondent:
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Clark and PA Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Smith v. Monroe County et al
as 3:2018cv00026
Plaintiff:
Johnny E. Smith
Defendant:
Monroe County, Monroe County Correctional Facility, Garry Haidel and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Smith v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al
as 1:2017cv02339
Petitioner:
Charles E. Smith
Respondent:
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and PA State Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Smith v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al
as 1:2017cv00427
Petitioner:
Charles E. Smith
Respondent:
Commonwealth of Pennslvania, Dauphin County Prosecutor's Office, Pennsylvania Supreme Court and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Smith v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al
as 1:2016cv01503
Petitioner:
Charles E. Smith
Respondent:
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg Police Dept., Dennis Simmons and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Smith v. Perdue
as 3:2016cv00147
Petitioner:
Sydney E Smith
Respondent:
R.A. Perdue
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
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.
