Cases 11 - 20 of 36
Howard Carter v. Kathleen Kane, et al
as 16-3731
Plaintiff - Appellant:
HOWARD A. CARTER
Defendant - Appellee:
KATHLEEN G. KANE, BRIAN COLEMAN, DARRELL O. DUGAN and others
PARMS v. FITZGERALD et al
as 2:2016cv01033
Plaintiff:
NIGEL DWAYNE PARMS
Defendant:
RICH FITZGERALD, ORLANDO HARPER, FR. KNIGHT and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
DOE v. DOE et al
as 2:2016cv01038
Plaintiff:
JOHN DOE
Defendant:
JANE DOE, BARB DOE, BILL DOE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
CARTER v. KANE et al
as 1:2016cv00035
Plaintiff:
HOWARD A. CARTER
Defendant:
KATHLEEN G. KANE, DANIEL P. BURNS, JAMES C. BARNACLE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
CARTER v. KANE et al
as 1:2016cv00007
Plaintiff:
HOWARD A. CARTER
Defendant:
KATHLEEN G. KANE, BRIAN COLEMEN, DARRELL O. DUGAN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
PARKER v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY/PRISON et al
as 2:2015cv03819
Plaintiff:
JASON PARKER
Defendant:
MONTGOMERY COUNTY/PRISON, JULIO ALGARIN, NANCY T. MCFARLAND and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
MCCAIN v. WETZEL et al
as 1:2015cv00079
Plaintiff:
AMIR HAKIM MCCAIN
Defendant:
JOHN E. WETZEL, STEVEN GATES, TAMMY CERSARINO-MARTIN, MAJOR and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
WILLIAMS v. SECURUS CORRECTIONAL BILLING et al
as 1:2014cv00042
Plaintiff:
ROSHA C. WILLIAMS
Defendant:
SECURUS CORRECTIONAL BILLING, ERIE COUNTY PRISON and MICHAEL HOLMAN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ROGERS v. SCI PGH - MHU UNIT 2003 EMPLOYEE et al
as 2:2014cv00024
Plaintiff:
JAMES HORACE ROGERS
Defendant:
SCI PGH - MHU UNIT 2003 EMPLOYIES, RJ, SMITTY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SMITH v. JOHNSON et al
as 2:2013cv00628
Plaintiff:
ERVING SMITH
Defendant:
STACEE M. JOHNSON , ELISHA SAVANNAH and BILL MORRIS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1343 Violation of Civil Rights
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.
