Cases 1 - 10 of 41
Jones v. McCormack
as 1:2023cv10522
Petitioner:
Rafael Arden Jones
Respondent:
Ned McCormack
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Purdy v. James et al
as 0:2023cv03148
Petitioner:
Jeffrey Colin Purdy
Respondent:
Kendal James, Ned G. Wohlman and Jordan DePonty
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Jokhoo v. Wohlman et al
as 0:2023cv03022
Petitioner:
Khemall Jokhoo
Respondent:
Ned G. Wohlman, Kendall James, Colette Peters and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Jones v. McCormack
as 1:2023cv08296
Plaintiff:
Rafael Arden Jones
Defendant:
Ned McCormack
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Jones v. The Warden of OBCC
as 1:2023cv08295
Petitioner:
Rafael Arden Jones
Respondent:
The Warden of OBCC and Ned McCormack
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
SMITH v. BEASLEY
as 7:2023cv00061
Plaintiff:
ROY MANDELL SMITH
Defendant:
Lt AARON KIRK, Supervisor KEVIN CONNOLLY, NED M MIKULA and others
Respondent:
Warden JACOB BEASLEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Schlosser v. Lamont et al
as 3:2022cv01620
Petitioner:
Jeffrey Schlosser
Defendant:
William Tong
Respondent:
Ned Lamont
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Sandoval v. Shinn, et al
as 3:2022cv08037
Petitioner:
Ned Alan Sandoval
Respondent:
David Shinn and Arizona Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Inzitari v. McCormack
as 3:2021cv01404
Petitioner:
Michael Inzitari
Respondent:
Ned McCormack
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Young v. Wohlman et al
as 0:2021cv01320
Petitioner:
Walter Young
Respondent:
Brenda Mort and Ned G. Wohlman
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
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.
