Cases 31 - 40 of 42
CAMILO v. POWERS et al
as 2:2007cv04307
Petitioner:
JOSE CAMILO
Respondent:
MIKE POWERS and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
JACKSON v. POWER
as 2:2007cv04121
Plaintiff:
SAYNORAL ANDREW JACKSON
Defendant:
MIKE POWER
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
STILTON v. EAST JERSEY STATE PRISON, et al
as 2:2007cv03702
Defendant:
DONALD STILTON, EAST JERSEY STATE PRISON, MIKE POWERS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
QUIRINDONGO v. HAYMAN et al
as 2:2007cv03613
Plaintiff:
ANTHONY M. QUIRINDONGO
Defendant:
GEORGE HAYMAN, THOMAS M. POWERS, STEVEN JOHNSON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
TOY v. HAYMAN et al
as 2:2007cv03076
Plaintiff:
JAMES E. TOY
Defendant:
GEORGE HAYMAN, MIKE POWERS, TARIQ WILLIAMS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
JOSEPH v. POWER et al
as 2:2007cv02935
Petitioner:
LESLIE JOSEPH
Respondent:
MICHAEL POWER and STUART RABNER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
MACON v. POWER
as 3:2007cv02806
Petitioner:
RONNY J. MACON
Respondent:
MIKE POWER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
COLVIN v. POWERS et al
as 2:2007cv02615
Petitioner:
QUA 'SHIC COLVIN
Respondent:
MIKE POWERS and CHRIS CHRISTIE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
KIRKLAND v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
as 2:2007cv02134
Plaintiff:
DARNELL KIRKLAND
Defendant:
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, EAST JERSEY STATE PRISON, MIKE POWERS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
SANTOS v. POWERS et al
as 1:2007cv02022
Petitioner:
JOSE SANTOS
Respondent:
MIKE POWERS and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
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.
