Cases 11 - 20 of 60
Carroll v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole et al
as 3:2017cv02238
Plaintiff:
Wesley Carroll
Defendant:
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, Edward Burke, John Talaber and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Carroll v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole et al
as 3:2017cv02170
Plaintiff:
Wesley Carroll
Defendant:
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, Edward Burke, John Talaber and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ruffin v. Mooney et al
as 3:2016cv01986
Plaintiff:
David Ruffin
Defendant:
V Mooney, Campbell, Woods and others
Amicu:
Smith
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
LLOYD v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 2:2016cv03081
Plaintiff:
ROBERT LLOYD
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
SMITH v. ROGERS et al
as 3:2015cv00264
Plaintiff:
HARRY G. SMITH, JR.
Defendant:
LLOYD GENE ROGERS, JR., MARK YINGLING, RAY BAKER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Thomas v. Potteiger et al
as 1:2014cv02323
Petitioner:
Vincent Thomas
Respondent:
Michael Potteiger, Randy Feather, James C. Fox and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
MEGELA v. CAPOZZA et al
as 2:2014cv01335
Petitioner:
BRADLEY A. MEGELA
Respondent:
MARK CAPOZZA, LLOYD A. WHITE and KATHLEEN KANE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
WASHINGTON v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 2:2014cv04169
Petitioner:
LLOYD WASHINGTON, JR.
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
DELUCA v. WHITE et al
as 2:2014cv00545
Petitioner:
RICHARD HENRY DELUCA
Respondent:
LLOYD A. WHITE, KRAIG WILLIAMS, MARK CAPOZZA and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
LLOYD v. NUTTER et al
as 2:2014cv01499
Plaintiff:
BRAHIN LLOYD
Defendant:
MICHAEL NUTTER, LOUIS GIORLA and JOHN DELANEY
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.
