Cases 1 - 9 of 9
Santos Rodriguez v. Michael Harlow, et al
as 13-1746
Plaintiff - Appellant:
SANTOS RAMOS RODRIGUEZ
Defendant - Appellee:
MICHAEL HARLOW, Warden, SCI Albion and ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA
RODRIGUEZ v. HARLOW et al
as 1:2013cv00107
Petitioner:
Santos Ramos Rodriguez
Respondent:
Michael W. Harlow and The Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
RODRIGUEZ v. HARLOW et al
as 1:2013cv00011
Petitioner:
SANTOS RAMOS RODRIGUEZ
Respondent:
MICHAEL W. HARLOW and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
RODRIGUEZ V CHRONISTER, ET AL
as 1:2012cv00129
Plaintiff:
SANTOS RAMOS RODRIGUEZ
Defendant:
JUDITH VIGLEONE, MICHAEL W. HARLOW, CHERYL GILL and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
RODRIGUEZ v. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY et al
as 1:2012cv00114
Plaintiff:
SANTOS RAMOS RODRIGUEZ
Defendant:
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, CHERY GILL, SANDRA GORNIAK and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Rodriguez v. Chronister et al
as 1:2012cv00393
Plaintiff:
Santos Ramos Rodriguez
Defendant:
John H. Chronister, John S. Kennedy, Seamus D. Dubbs and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Santos Rodriguez v. York County Court of Common Pl
as 12-1216
Plaintiff - Appellant:
SANTOS RAMOS RODRIGUEZ
Defendant - Appellee:
YORK COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, COMMONWEALTH OF PA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and others
Rodriguez v. Court of Common Pleas of York County et al
as 1:2011cv02267
Petitioner:
Santos Ramos Rodriguez
Respondent:
Court of Common Pleas of York County, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2011cv01709
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651
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.
