Cases 1 - 10 of 10
ROYSTER v. MOONEY et al
as 2:2018cv02271
Petitioner:
MICHAEL ROYSTER
Respondent:
MOONEY, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF LUZERNE and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ____________
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Royster v. Mooney et al
as 3:2018cv01069
Petitioner:
Michael Royster
Respondent:
Mooney and PA State Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Royster v. Glunt et al
as 3:2017cv01149
Plaintiff:
Michael Royster
Defendant:
Glunt, William T. Williams, Burk and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ROYSTER v. THE DIRECTOR OF ROHAM & HAAS et al
as 2:2010cv06179
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL ROYSTER
Defendant:
THE DIRECTOR OF ROHAM & HAAS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION ROHAM & HAAS, ACTING DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION ROHAM AND HAAS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ROYSTER v. TENNIS et al
as 2:2009cv00464
Petitioner:
MICHAEL ROYSTER
Respondent:
FRANKLIN J. TENNIS, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF __________
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
ROYSTER v. TENNIS et al
as 2:2008cv05732
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL ROYSTER
Defendant:
FRANKLIN J. TENNIS and JEFFREY A. BEARD
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
ROYSTER v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al
as 2:2008cv05661
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL ROYSTER
Defendant:
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, A.D.A. FORCETTIE, ROBERT MILLS and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ROYSTER
as 2:2008cv05940
Petitioner:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Respondent:
MICHAEL ROYSTER
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ROYSTER
as 2:2007cv01852
Petitioner:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Respondent:
MICHAEL ROYSTER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
ROYSTER v. ADAMS et al
as 2:2007cv00018
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL ROYSTER
Defendant:
JOYCE ADAMS, J. STREET, BROKENBOROUGH 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.
