Cases 1 - 10 of 113
THOMPSON v. GIROUX et al
as 1:2018cv00028
Plaintiff:
PERCY THOMPSON
Defendant:
NANCY GIROUX, DANIEL STROUP, MARK GRUCZA and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SIERRA v. KANE et al
as 3:2017cv01584
Petitioner:
Antonio Sierra
Respondent:
Kathleen Kane, Nancy Giroux and PA State Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
LORD v. COLEMAN et al
as 1:2017cv00019
Plaintiff:
LYNDA LORD
Defendant:
TREVON W. COLEMAN, NANCY GIROUX, MICHAEL CLARK and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SIERRA v. KANE et al
as 1:2017cv00001
Petitioner:
ANTONIO SIERRA
Respondent:
KATHLEEN KANE, NANCY GIROUX and JACK DANERI
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
BREELAND v. JONES et al
as 1:2016cv00095
Defendant:
JONES, NANCY GIROUX, MELINDA ADAMS and others
Plaintiff:
JOSEPH BREELAND
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ANTONETTY-RODRIGUEZ v. GIROUX
as 5:2016cv01930
Petitioner:
JAVIER ANTONETTY-RODRIGUEZ
Respondent:
NANCY GIROUX, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF BERKS and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF READING, PA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
BERRIOZ v. GIROUX et al
as 2:2016cv01613
Petitioner:
WILLIAM J. BERRIOZ
Respondent:
NANCY GIROUX, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
ADAMS v. GIROUX et al
as 1:2016cv00064
Petitioner:
TROY L. ADAMS
Respondent:
NANCY GIROUX and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
WEST v. GIROUX et al
as 2:2016cv01185
Petitioner:
RAYMOND WEST
Respondent:
NANCY GIROUX and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF _______________
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
BARNETT v. GIROUX et al
as 2:2016cv00906
Petitioner:
HAROLD LEROY BARNETT
Respondent:
NANCY GIROUX, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF BUCKS and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
