Cases 11 - 20 of 32
WILLIAMS v. OVERMYER et al
as 1:2018cv00035
Plaintiff:
KEVIN WILLIAMS
Defendant:
MICHAEL D. OVERMYER, SECURITY OFFICE and OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
WILLIAMS v. OVERMYER et al
as 1:2017cv00251
Plaintiff:
MARK-ALONZO WILLIAMS
Defendant:
MICHAEL D. OVERMYER, JOHN W. SAWTELLE, DEREK F. OBERLANDER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
MAPLE v. OVERMYER et al
as 1:2017cv00182
Plaintiff:
ERIC MAPLE
Defendant:
MICHAEL D. OVERMYER, JOHN DOE, IRELAND and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
GRACE v. OVERMYER et al
as 2:2017cv00632
Petitioner:
FRAZIER CISCO GRACE
Respondent:
MICHAEL D. OVERMYER and JOSH SHAPIRO
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
CARSON v. WETZEL et al
as 1:2017cv00073
Plaintiff:
KENNETH A. CARSON
Defendant:
JEFFREY WETZEL, MICHAEL D. OVERMYER, EISENBERGER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
PREACHER v. OVERMYER et al
as 1:2017cv00018
Plaintiff:
JOHN DALE PREACHER
Defendant:
MICHAEL D. OVERMYER, DEREK F. OBERLANDER, ERNESTO J. MONGELLUZO and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SCHNEIDER v. OVERMYER et al
as 1:2016cv00077
Petitioner:
DAVID RICHARD SCHNEIDER
Respondent:
MICHAEL D. OVERMYER, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, KATHLEEN KANE and THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF ERIE COUNTY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
PEW v. OVERMYER et al
as 1:2016cv00066
Petitioner:
ALFONSO PERCY PEW
Respondent:
MICHAEL D. OVERMYER and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
VACTOR v. OVERMYER et al
as 1:2016cv00027
Plaintiff:
ROGER TODD VACTOR
Defendant:
MICHAEL D. OVERMYER, JASON W. REED, JAMES and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
GRIFFIN v. OVERMYER et al
as 1:2016cv00021
Defendant:
MICHAEL D. OVERMYER, PAUL A. ENNIS, ADAMS and others
Plaintiff:
BRIAN E. GRIFFIN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
