Cases 1 - 6 of 6
Murphy-Richardson #333262 v. Unknown Party
as 2:2023cv00141
Plaintiff:
Ismael Antonio Murphy-Richardson
Defendant:
Unknown Party, Office of the Clerk for the United States District Court, Office of the Clerk for the United States Court of Appeals and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Murphy-Richardson #333262 v. Office of Staff Attorneys et al
as 2:2022cv01691
Petitioner:
Ismael Antonio Murphy-Richardson
Respondent:
Office of Staff Attorneys and Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Murphy-Richardson #333262 v. Unknown Party et al
as 2:2022cv01640
Petitioner:
Ismael Antonio Murphy-Richardson
Respondent:
Unknown Party, Roslyn O Silver, Attorney General of the State of Arizona and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Murphy-Richardson #333262 v. Unknown Party et al
as 2:2022cv01448
Plaintiff:
Ismael Antonio Murphy-Richardson
Defendant:
Unknown Party, Office of Staff Attorneys, Psychiatric Security Review Board and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Murphy-Richardson #333262 v. Unknown Party et al
as 2:2022cv01304
Plaintiff:
Ismael Antonio Murphy-Richardson
Defendant:
Unknown Party, Office of the Clerk for the United States District Court, Office of the Clerk for the United States Court of Appeals and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Murphy-Richardson #333262 v. United States District Court for the District of Arizona et al
as 2:2022cv01270
Plaintiff:
Ismael Antonio Murphy-Richardson
Defendant:
United States District Court for the District of Arizona, United States Court of Appeals, Office of the Staff Attorneys for the United States Court of Appeals and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
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.
