Cases 41 - 50 of 58
Jose Ramos v. Jerome Walsh, et al
as 11-1165
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JOSE ANTONIO RAMOS
Defendant - Appellee:
JEROME WALSH, Superintendent SCI Dallas, DA WARREN CTY and ATTY GEN PA
NIEVES-RAMOS v. ROZUM et al
as 1:2010cv01730
Petitioner:
Jose Nieves-ramos
Respondent:
Gerald L. Rozum, Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania and District Attorney of the County of Dauphin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Ramos v. Beard et al
as 1:2010cv01533
Plaintiff:
Jose Antonio Ramos
Defendant:
Jeffrey A. Beard,, Michael Klopotoski, Vincent Mooney and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
NIEVES-RAMOS v. ROZUM et al
as 3:2010cv00167
Petitioner:
JOSE NIEVES-RAMOS
Respondent:
GERALD L. ROZUM, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF DAUPHIN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Ramos-Romero v. US
as 10-1457
Petitioner - Appellant:
JOSE A. RAMOS-ROMERO
Respondent - Appellee:
UNITED STATES
RAMOS v. WALSH et al
as 1:2010cv00031
Petitioner:
JOSE ANTONIO RAMOS
Respondent:
JEROME WALSH, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF WARREN COUNTY and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Cotto-Reyes v. Matias-De-Leon, et al
as 09-2499
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JORGE COTTO-REYES
Defendant - Appellee:
JUDITH MATIAS-DE-LEON and ROBERTO JOSE SANCHEZ-RAMOS
Ramos v. Thaler
as 5:2009cv00230
Petitioner:
Jose Manuel Ramos
Respondent:
Richard Thaler
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Fernandez-Malave v. Matias, et al
as 09-1275
Petitioner - Appellant:
RAMON L. FERNANDEZ-MALAVE
Respondent - Appellee:
JUDITH MATIAS, Warden and JOSE SANCHEZ-RAMOS, Attorney General of Puerto Rico
Fernandez-Malave v. Matias, et al
as 09-1152
Petitioner - Appellant:
RAMON L. FERNANDEZ-MALAVE
Respondent - Appellee:
JUDITH MATIAS, Warden and JOSE SANCHEZ-RAMOS, Attorney General of Puerto Rico
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.
