Cases 51 - 60 of 396
Perez v. Kerestes
as 3:2015cv00901
Petitioner:
Jose Miguel Perez
Respondent:
John Kerestes and PA State Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
BLALARK v. HILL et al
as 3:2015cv00872
Plaintiff:
Gary Stafford Blalark
Defendant:
Muhammed Binabdulrahi Hill, A. I. Crawford, Jeffrey Banks and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
STEWART v. KERESTES et al
as 2:2015cv01944
Petitioner:
TURON STEWART
Respondent:
JOHN KERESTES, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
BANKS v. KERESTES et al
as 2:2015cv01945
Petitioner:
RAMIK BANKS
Respondent:
JOHN KERESTES, 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
Jacobs v. Lisiak et al
as 1:2015cv00686
Plaintiff:
Rahn A. Jacobs
Defendant:
J. Lisiak , Correct Care Solutions , John Kerestes and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
MACK v. KERESTES et al
as 2:2015cv01829
Petitioner:
MALIK MACK
Respondent:
JOHN KERESTES, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Woodley v. Kerestes et al
as 3:2015cv00498
Petitioner:
Kevin A Woodley
Respondent:
John Kerestes and PA Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
BLALARK v. HILL et al
as 2:2015cv01267
Plaintiff:
GARY STAFFORD BLALARK
Defendant:
MUHAMMED BINABDULRAHI HILL, A. I. CRAWFORD, JEFFREY BANKS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Walker v. Wetzel et al
as 3:2015cv00391
Plaintiff:
William J Walker, Jr.
Defendant:
John E. Wetzel, Kevin Kauffman, Diane Kagarise and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SHELBO v. WETZEL et al
as 1:2015cv00344
Plaintiff:
PETER SHELBO
Defendant:
JOHN WETZEL, John Kerestes, Sorba and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
