Cases 21 - 30 of 37
David Calhoun v. Warden, et al
as 11-15030
Petitioner - Appellant:
DAVID CALHOUN
Respondent - Appellee:
STATON CF WARDEN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF ALABAMA and STATE OF ALABAMA
SSS Enterprises, Inc. et al v. Nova Petroleum Realty, LLC et al
as 1:2011cv01134
Plaintiff:
SSS Enterprises, Inc. , Mishba, Inc. , Baig Oil, Inc. and others
Defendant:
Nova Petroleum Realty, LLC , Nova Petroleum Realty, Inc. , Nova Petroleum Suppliers, LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962
Calhoun v. Forniss, et al (INMATE 3)
as 2:2011cv00725
Plaintiff:
David Calhoun
Defendant:
Leon Forniss, Luther Strange and State of Alabama
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Calhoun v. Shartle
as 4:2011cv00010
Petitioner:
David Calhoun
Respondent:
J.T. Shartle
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
David Calhoun v. PA Bd of Probation & Parole, et al
as 10-3710
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DAVID CALHOUN
Defendant - Appellee:
PA BD OF PROBATION & PAROLE and ATTY GEN PA
David Calhoun v. DOJ
as 10-5125
Plaintiff - Appellant:
David Calhoun
Defendant - Appellee:
United States Department of Justice
CALHOUN v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 2:2010cv00986
Plaintiff:
DAVID CALHOUN
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
David Calhoun v. Lawrence Murray, et al
as 09-2968
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DAVID CALHOUN
Defendant - Appellee:
LAWRENCE MURRAY, KENYA S. MANN and JOEL D. GOLDSTEIN
Defendant - Non-Participating:
US MARSHAL SER
CALHOUN v. PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE
as 2:2009cv01707
Petitioner:
DAVID CALHOUN
Respondent:
PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Calhoun v. Forniss et al (INMATE3)
as 2:2009cv00356
Plaintiff:
David Calhoun
Defendant:
Leon Forniss, Troy King and Montgomery County Sheriff's Department
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
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.
