Cases 1 - 10 of 1,442
Allen v. Jackson
as 4:2024cv02899
Petitioner:
Earnest Maurice Allen, Earnest Maurice Pickett and Ernest Maurice Allen
Respondent:
Warden Jackson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Freeman v. Smith
as 1:2024cv00776
Petitioner:
Maurice Freeman
Respondent:
Warden Shelbie Smith
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
GOODEN v. ROYCE et al
as 1:2024cv05440
Petitioner:
MAURICE GOODEN
Respondent:
RAYMOND ROYCE 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)
Freeman v. Warden Belmont Correctional Institution
as 2:2024cv01862
Petitioner:
Maurice Freeman
Respondent:
Warden Belmont Correctional Institution
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Maurice Jackson v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
as 24-11115
Petitioner:
MAURICE J. JACKSON
Respondent:
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
John McDonald v. District Attorney Dauphin County, et al
as 24-1650
Plaintiff:
JOHN MAURICE MCDONALD
Defendant:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY DAUPHIN COUNTY, WARDEN FRACKVILLE SCI and ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA
Shuron Barksdale v. Chadwick Dotson
as 24-6289
Petitioner:
SHURON MAURICE BARKSDALE
Respondent:
CHADWICK DOTSON, Director, Department of Corrections
Jones v. Sproul
as 3:2024cv00860
Petitioner:
Ronnie Maurice Jones
Respondent:
Daniel Sproul
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Alexander v. Jackson
as 2:2024cv00354
Petitioner:
Kevion Maurice Alexander
Respondent:
Rob Jackson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Andrew Randolph v. Matt Macauley
as 24-1202
Petitioner:
ANDREW MAURICE RANDOLF and ANDREW MAURICE RANDOLPH
Respondent:
MATT MACAULEY, 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.
