Cases 21 - 29 of 29
Isaac Naranjo v. City of Philadelphia, et al
as 15-1298
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ISAAC NARANJO
Defendant - Appellee:
PHILADELPHIA CITY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY PHILADELPHIA, PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICE OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY and others
EVANS-EL v. MEANS et al
as 2:2015cv00537
Petitioner:
ALTER EVANS-EL
Respondent:
RAYFORD ALLEN MEANS, STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
NARANJO v. THE PHILADELPHIA CITY et al
as 2:2014cv07260
Plaintiff:
ISAAC NARANJO
Defendant:
THE PHILADELPHIA CITY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICE OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
UPSHUR v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al
as 2:2014cv02914
Plaintiff:
ALBERT WILLIAM UPSHUR
Defendant:
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, GARY CHAMP, WILLIAM CHRISTOPHER MONTOYA and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ARSAD v. MEAN et al
as 2:2014cv00884
Petitioner:
WARREN ARSAD
Respondent:
RAYFORD A. MEAN and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF _________
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
POLK v. CURRAN FROMHOLD CORRECTIONAL FACILITY et al
as 2:2012cv00196
Plaintiff:
CHARLES POLK
Defendant:
CURRAN FROMHOLD CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, RAYFORD ALLEN MEANS, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ARSAD v. JUDGE RAYFORD A. MEANS et al
as 3:2009cv00260
Petitioner:
WARREN ARSAD
Respondent:
JUDGE RAYFORD A. MEANS and PHILA. DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Warren F Arsad, Jr. v. Rayford Means, et al
as 09-3152
Plaintiff - Appellant:
WARREN F. ARSAD, JR.
Defendant - Appellee:
RAYFORD ALLEN MEANS, PHILADELPHIA COURT COMMON PLEAS, ADA CAROL SWEENEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE, JOHN W. GOLDSBOROUGH and others
HARRISON v. MEANS
as 2:2007cv01659
Petitioner:
PATRICK HARRISON
Respondent:
RAYFORD A. MEANS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
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.
