Cases 21 - 30 of 33
WHITEHEAD v. ROZUM et al
as 3:2011cv00102
Plaintiff:
CARL WHITEHEAD
Defendant:
GERALD L. ROZUM, ROGER SMITH, DORINA VARNER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Reynolds v. United States of America et al
as 3:2010cv02602
Plaintiff:
Michael Curtis Reynolds
Defendant:
United States of America, John Gurganus, Larry Whitehead and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Reynolds v. Whitehead et al
as 3:2010cv02044
Plaintiff:
Michael Curtis Reynolds
Defendant:
Larry Whitehead, Joseph Neone and US Marshal, unknown
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Reynolds v. Whitehead et al
as 4:2010cv01514
Plaintiff:
Michael Curtis Reynolds
Defendant:
Larry Whitehead and Joseph Noone
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Reynolds v. Noone et al
as 3:2010cv00964
Plaintiff:
Michael Curtis Reynolds
Defendant:
Joseph Noone and Larry Whitehead
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
WHITEHEAD v. ROZUM et al
as 3:2009cv00220
Plaintiff:
CARL WHITEHEAD
Defendant:
GERALD ROZUM, SYLVIA GIBSON, GEORGE GRIFFIN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
HANKINS v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA et al
as 1:2009cv00182
Plaintiff:
ROBERT HANKINS
Defendant:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, JEFFREY BEARD, CINDY G. WATSON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Melbourne v. D.H.S. et al
as 4:2008cv02199
Plaintiff:
Wallace A. Melbourne
Defendant:
D.H.S., Joe Saleme, Donald Monica and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
HOWARD et al v. JONES et al
as 1:2008cv00308
Plaintiff:
MORRIS HOWARD, SHAWN BROWN, JOSEPH MCGOLGON and others
Defendant:
JEFFREY BEARD, RAYMOND SOBINA, BARONE and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
WHITEHEAD v. ROZUM et al
as 2:2008cv00259
Petitioner:
CARL WHITEHEAD
Respondent:
GERALD L. ROZUM and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
