Cases 1 - 10 of 13
KING v. ESTOCK et al
as 2:2022cv00708
Petitioner:
JEROME KING
Respondent:
LEE ESTOCK, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
King v. Vannoy
as 1:2018cv01259
Defendant:
Darrel Vannoy
Plaintiff:
Isaac Jerome King
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
KING v. STATE OF GEORGIA et al
as 2:2018cv00039
Plaintiff:
Michael Jerome King
Defendant:
State of Georgia, HADLEY H MANN, ROBERT LANE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
KING v. STATE OF GEORGIA et al
as 1:2018cv00006
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL JEROME KING
Defendant:
STATE OF GEORGIA, JOHN AND OR JANE DOE and JOHN AND OR JANE DOES
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
KING v. SUPERINTENDENT, SCI GRATERFORD et al
as 2:2015cv06508
Petitioner:
JEROME KING
Respondent:
SUPERINTENDENT, SCI GRATERFORD, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
KING v. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA et al
as 2:2014cv00677
Petitioner:
JEROME KING
Respondent:
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
King v. Pascagoula, MS et al
as 1:2013cv00362
Plaintiff:
Michael Jerome King
Defendant:
Pascagoula, MS, Pascagoula Police Department and Shelia Jenkins
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
David King v. Rick Hill
as 13-56372
Petitioner - Appellant:
DAVID JEROME KING
Respondent - Appellee:
RICK HILL, Warden
David King v. Rick Hill
as 13-56278
Petitioner - Appellant:
DAVID JEROME KING
Respondent - Appellee:
RICK HILL, Warden
KING v. COLEMAN
as 2:2013cv02624
Petitioner:
JEROME KING
Respondent:
BRIAN COLEMAN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
