Cases 21 - 30 of 71
STEED v. BRITTON
as 2:2010cv02554
Petitioner:
VERNON STEED
Respondent:
RANDALL E. BRITTON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Luis Rodriguez v. Randall Britton, et al
as 10-2425
Plaintiff - Appellant:
LUIS ANDRES RODRIGUEZ
Defendant - Appellee:
RANDALL E. BRITTON, ET AL, DA BERKS and ATTY GEN PA
Lester Eiland v. Randall Britton, et al
as 10-2418
Plaintiff - Appellant:
LESTER EILAND
Defendant - Appellee:
RANDALL E. BRITTON, ATTY GEN PA and DA DAUPHIN
Ronald Bricker v. Turner, et al, et al
as 10-2275
Plaintiff - Appellant:
RONALD L. BRICKER
Defendant - Appellee:
TURNER, RANDALL E. BRITTON, C. SMITH and others
Shawn Tomlin v. Randall Britton, et al
as 10-2086
Plaintiff - Appellant:
SHAWN TOMLIN
Defendant - Appellee:
RANDALL E. BRITTON, ET AL., DA PHILADELPHIA and ATTY GEN PA
JOHNSON v. BRITTON et al
as 2:2010cv00990
Petitioner:
ANTHONY JOHNSON
Respondent:
RANDALL E. BRITTON, 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)
Bricker v. Turner et al
as 1:2010cv00479
Plaintiff:
Ronald L. Bricker
Defendant:
Turner, Randall E. Britton, C Smith and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
DAVIS v. BRITTON et al
as 3:2010cv00057
Petitioner:
CHARLES DAVIS
Respondent:
RANDALL E. BRITTON, JEFFREY A. BEARD, MARY JO BARBER and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Darryl Barrett v. Randall Britton, et al
as 10-1299
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DARRYL BARRETT
Defendant - Appellee:
RANDALL E. BRITTON, Supt. at SCI-Houtzdale and PA BD PROBATION AND PAROLE
RAO v. BRITTON et al
as 2:2010cv00266
Petitioner:
FRANK A. RAO
Respondent:
RANDALL E. BRITTON and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
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.
