Cases 1 - 10 of 26
HAYNES v. S.C.I. HOUTZDALE, DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS et al
as 3:2023cv00165
Plaintiff:
DONALD R. HAYNES
Defendant:
S.C.I. HOUTZDALE, DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, DR. NAJI MUHAMMAD, TERRI SECHRENGOST and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
BARD v. QUEEN
as 3:2022cv00100
Petitioner:
ROBERT G. BARD
Respondent:
QUEEN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
NUNEZ v. QUEEN
as 3:2022cv00082
Petitioner:
ALBERTO NUNEZ
Respondent:
ACTING WARDEN QUEEN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
OCHOA-PEREZ v. QUEEN
as 3:2022cv00081
Petitioner:
RAUL OCHOA-PEREZ
Respondent:
QUEEN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
GRIFFIN v. ACTING WARDEN QUEEN
as 3:2022cv00077
Petitioner:
THOMAS GRIFFIN
Respondent:
ACTING WARDEN QUEEN, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF CAMBRIA COUNTY and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2020cv00957
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
SMART v. QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY et al
as 1:2018cv17434
Plaintiff:
SALAHUDDIN F. SMART
Defendant:
JOHN DOE FOOD SERVICES PROVIDER, QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY, WARDEN JOHN DOE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Nicholas Queen v. Warden Lewisburg USP
as 16-1128
Plaintiff - Appellant:
NICHOLAS QUEEN
Defendant - Appellee:
WARDEN LEWISBURG USP
Nicholas Queen v. Donald Romine
as 12-3346
Plaintiff - Appellant:
NICHOLAS QUEEN
Defendant - Appellee:
DONALD ROMINE
PARKER v. H.L. HUFFORD/F.C.I. SCHUYLKILL, et al.
as 3:2011cv01338
Petitioner:
John D. Parker
Respondent:
Hufford H.I./F.C.I. Schuylkill, The District Attorney of County of Queens and The Attorney General of the State of New York
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.
