Cases 11 - 20 of 21
Edwards #354460 v. Curley et al
as 2:2010cv01481
Petitioner:
DONALD ROY EDWARDS
Respondent:
MICHAEL CURLEY and STEPHEN A. ZAPPALA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Holder v. Curley
as 1:2010cv02236
Petitioner:
Glynn A. Holder
Respondent:
Michael Curley
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Otto v. Curley et al
as 1:2010cv02193
Petitioner:
Steven D. Otto
Respondent:
Michael Curley, Muskegon Correctional Facility and The attorney general of the state of pa
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
PARKER v. CURLEY et al
as 2:2010cv05569
Petitioner:
RICHARD . PARKER
Respondent:
MICHAEL CURLEY, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELHIA, CO. and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Stubbs v. Curley et al
as 1:2010cv01849
Petitioner:
Henry Christopher Stubbs, III
Respondent:
Michael Curley and Attorney General of the State of PA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
GEMAS v. HENEKS et al
as 2:2010cv01123
Petitioner:
JAMES DARRELL GEMAS
Respondent:
JACK R. HENEKS, MICHAEL CURLEY and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
PARKER v. CURLEY
as 2:2010mc00157
Plaintiff:
RICHARD PARKER
Defendant:
MICHAEL CURLEY
Cause Of Action: Petition for Review
Type:
Other Statutes
SHERIDAN v. CURLEY et al
as 2:2010cv03987
Respondent:
MICHAEL CURLEY, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Petitioner:
TREYVAUGHN SHERIDAN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
WASHINGTON v. CURLEY et al
as 2:2010cv03423
Petitioner:
KEITH WASHINGTON
Respondent:
MICHAEL CURLEY and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF __________
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
O'HARA v. SOBINA et al
as 1:2010cv00163
Petitioner:
JOHN ELLSWORTH O'HARA
Respondent:
RAYMOND J. SOBINA, MICHAEL CURLEY and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
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.
