Cases 1 - 8 of 8
PARKINSON v. IRWIN et al
as 2:2023cv00458
Plaintiff:
AUSTIN MICHAEL PARKINSON
Defendant:
R. IRWIN, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF COM. OF PENN and DIST. ATTY'S OFFICE OF MONTGOMERY CO.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
SERAFIN v. MONTGOMERY CO., PA OFFICE OF CHILDREN + YOUTH et al
as 2:2019cv01817
Defendant:
JOANNE CIANCIULLI, MONTGOMERY CO., PA OFFICE OF CHILDREN + YOUTH, CRAIG CHWAL and others
Plaintiff:
RAQUEL ANN SERAFIN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ROSELLI v. SMITH et al
as 2:2017cv02196
Petitioner:
FRANK ROSELLI
Respondent:
SMITH, PA ATTORNEY GENERAL, MONTGOMERY CO. D.A. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
VALLE v. SUPERINTENDENT OF DALLAS et al
as 2:2016cv01811
Petitioner:
ANTONIO S. VALLE
Respondent:
SUPERINTENDENT OF DALLAS, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY CO, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF JOHN TOWNSON DICKERSON and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
JONES v. CURLEY et al
as 2:2011cv02809
Petitioner:
HOWARD S. JONES, JR.
Respondent:
MICHAEL CURLEY , THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY CO. PENNSYLVANIA and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLAVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
BLACK v. CURLY et al
as 2:2010cv05238
Petitioner:
RASHUAN BLACK
Respondent:
MICHAEL CURLY, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY CO. PENNSYLVANIA and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
YOUNG v. DEMEHICK et al
as 2:2008cv04648
Plaintiff:
KEVIN YOUNG
Defendant:
WENDY DEMEHICK, JUDGE C. PIERCE, JEFFREY R. DELP and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
CRAIG v. MONTGOMERY CO. CORR. FAC. et al
as 2:2007cv04988
Plaintiff:
DEON EMANUEL CRAIG
Defendant:
MONTGOMERY CO. CORR. FAC., DOE, MONTGOMERY CO. SHERIFF'S DEPT. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
