Cases 1 - 10 of 11
Anthony Armstrong v. Superintendent Camp Hill SCI, et al
as 23-2677
Petitioner / Appellant:
ANTHONY ARMSTRONG
Respondent / Appellee:
SUPERINTENDENT CAMP HILL SCI, DISTRICT ATTORNEY PHILADELPHIA and ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA
(PC) Armstrong v. Plumas County of California
as 2:2021cv01881
Plaintiff:
Eric Anthony Armstrong
Defendant:
Plumas County of California
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ARMSTRONG v. SUPERINTENDENT et al
as 2:2020cv05012
Petitioner:
ANTHONY ARMSTRONG
Respondent:
SUPERINTENDENT, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Armstrong-Morrow v. Cole et al
as 0:2020cv00147
Plaintiff:
Mychael Anthony Armstrong-Morrow
Defendant:
Luke DeHaan and Cole
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Armstrong v. Shaw et al
as 3:2019cv00015
Defendant:
Jane Does, Warden Frank Shaw, Sgt Unknown D. Chapman and others
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Plaintiff:
Anthony Armstrong
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Armstrong v. Shaw et al
as 3:2018cv00379
Plaintiff:
Anthony Armstrong
Defendant:
Frank Shaw, Norris Hogan, D. Chapman and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Armstrong v. Miller, et al
as 9:2016cv00478
Plaintiff:
Anthony Armstrong
Defendant:
C. Miller, Ives, C. Jackson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Armstrong v. New York State Department of Corrections et al
as 1:2016cv02189
Plaintiff:
Anthony Armstrong
Defendant:
New York State Department of Corrections, C. Miller, New York State Department of Mental Health Unit and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Armstrong v. State of Alabama Department of Corrections
as 1:2014cv00014
Petitioner:
Anthony Armstrong
Respondent:
State of Alabama Department of Corrections
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Mark Armstrong v. Derrell Adam
as 11-56700
Petitioner - Appellant:
MARK ANTHONY ARMSTRONG
Respondent - Appellee:
DERRELL G. ADAMS, Warden
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.
