Cases 1 - 10 of 11
GILBY v. HERTZ VEHICLES LLC. et al
as 1:2021cv13213
Plaintiff:
JEROME P. GILBY
Defendant:
CRAIG ALFORD, NICOLE ROBINSON and HERTZ VEHICLES LLC.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ALFORD v. WISENHOWER et al
as 1:2017cv06259
Plaintiff:
CRAIG ALFORD
Defendant:
WISENHOWER, TAYLOR, CAMDEN COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ALFORD v. TAYLOR et al
as 1:2017cv06103
Petitioner:
CRAIG ALFORD
Respondent:
KAREN TAYLOR, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY and NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
ALFORD v. TAYLOR et al
as 1:2017cv05611
Petitioner:
CRAIG ALFORD
Respondent:
KAREN TAYLOR, NJ STATE PAROLE BOARD 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)
ALFORD v. ELLIS et al
as 3:2015cv07145
Petitioner:
CRAIG ALFORD
Respondent:
ELLIS 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)
ALFORD v. ELLIS et al
as 3:2015cv06998
Petitioner:
CRAIG ALFORD
Respondent:
ELLIS 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)
ALFORD et al v. WOJCHIECHOWICZ et al
as 3:2015cv06750
Plaintiff:
CRAIG ALFORD
Defendant:
BO ROBINSON PSYCHOLOGIST
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ALFORD v. ELLIS et al
as 3:2015cv03783
Petitioner:
CRAIG ALFORD
Respondent:
CHARLES ELLIS, NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
ALFORD v. ELLIS et al
as 3:2015cv03484
Plaintiff:
CRAIG ALFORD
Defendant:
CHARLES ELLIS, MERCER COUNTY JAIL and RAYA-SCOTT
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ALFORD v ULMER
as 3:2015cv02638
Plaintiff:
CRAIG ALFORD
Defendant:
EMT AGENT ULMER and NJ STATE PAROLE BOARD
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.
