Cases 11 - 20 of 25
DOUGLAS v. ROYCE et al
as 3:2021cv17884
Petitioner:
LAMONT O. DOUGLAS
Respondent:
RAYMOND ROYCE and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Adrian GuilleIn re: Adrian Guille
as 21-2842
Petitioner:
In re: ADRIAN GUILLE
Defendant:
STEVEN JOHNSON, RAYMOND ROYCE, SEARS and others
Respondent:
DAVID RICHARDS, AMY EMRICH, S. PATTERSON and others
ALVES v. ROYCE et al
as 2:2021cv16566
Petitioner:
CARLOS ALVES
Respondent:
RAYMOND ROYCE, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF ESSEX and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
GREEN v. ROYCE et al
as 2:2021cv16165
Petitioner:
KENNETH B. GREEN
Respondent:
RAYMOND ROYCE and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
THOMAS v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY et al
as 1:2021cv16164
Petitioner:
JONATHAN THOMAS
Respondent:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY and RAYMOND ROYCE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
SUAREZ-PEREZ v. ROYCE et al
as 3:2021cv15948
Petitioner:
ANTONIO SUAREZ-PEREZ
Respondent:
RAYMOND ROYCE and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
BELLAMY v. ROYCE et al
as 2:2021cv15256
Petitioner:
SHIQUAN BELLAMY
Respondent:
RAYMOND ROYCE and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
EADY v. ROYCE et al
as 2:2021cv15264
Petitioner:
GREGORY S EADY
Respondent:
RAYMOND ROYCE and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
SMITH vs. RAYMOND ROYCE et al
as 2:2021cv14461
Petitioner:
JAMA SMITH
Defendant:
RAYMOND ROYCE and GURBIR S GREWAL
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
KILLION v. ROYCE et al
as 1:2021cv12876
Respondent:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY and RAYMOND ROYCE
Petitioner:
BRIAN E. KILLION
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.
