Cases 1 - 10 of 41
CLIFFORD v. WARDEN RACHEL THOMPSON, FCI - FT. DIX
as 1:2024cv00870
Petitioner:
STEPHEN FRANCIS CLIFFORD
Respondent:
WARDEN RACHEL THOMPSON, FCI - FT. DIX
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
SHIRLEY v. ORTIZ
as 1:2021cv05664
Respondent:
WARDEN DAVID E. ORTIZ
Petitioner:
CLIFFORD EDWARD SHIRLEY, JR.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
FOSS v. SUPERINTENDENT OF SCI FAYETTE et al
as 5:2018cv05313
Respondent:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and SUPERINTENDENT OF SCI FAYETTE
Petitioner:
CLIFFORD M. FOSS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Fassnacht v. Garman
as 5:2018cv03270
Petitioner:
CLIFFORD FASSNACHT
Respondent:
PA STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, MARK GARMAN and THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF LANCASTER COUNTY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
REPOTSKI v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA et al
as 2:2018cv03110
Respondent:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF and COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Petitioner:
CLIFFORD BRANDON REPOTSKI
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Fassnacht v. Garman
as 3:2018cv01451
Respondent:
Supt. Mark Garman and PA State Attorney General
Petitioner:
Clifford Fassnacht
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 3:2017cv00211
Petitioner:
CLIFFORD B. WILLIAMS
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Clifford Murray v. Superintendent Graterford SCI, et al
as 16-3200
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CLIFFORD MURRAY
Defendant - Appellee:
SUPERINTENDENT GRATERFORD SCI, DISTRICT ATTORNEY PHILADELPHIA and ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA
GRABOWSKI v. NOGAN et al
as 3:2016cv03349
Petitioner:
CLIFFORD GRABOWSKI
Respondent:
PATRICK NOGAN and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Clifford Repotski v. Michael Poust, et al
as 15-4060
Plaintiff - Appellee:
CLIFFORD B. REPOTSKI
Defendant - Appellee:
MICHAEL J. POUST, DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY COUNTY and ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA
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.
