Cases 31 - 40 of 49
Brito v. Cumberland County Prison
as 3:2015cv01641
Plaintiff:
Santiago DeJesus Brito
Defendant:
Jason Sweeney and Jonathan Leuck
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Brito v. Capital Pavillion et al
as 3:2015cv01519
Plaintiff:
Santiago DeJesus Brito
Defendant:
Capital Pavillion and Jennifer Bowser
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DEJESUS v. WETZEL et al
as 2:2015cv00417
Petitioner:
JOSE DEJESUS
Respondent:
JOHN E. WETZEL, ROBERT GILMORE, STEVEN GLUNT and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 dp Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (DEATH PENALTY)
DEJESUS v. WETZEL et al
as 2:2015cv00397
Petitioner:
JOSE DEJESUS
Respondent:
JOHN E. WETZEL, ROBERT GILMORE, STEVEN GLUNT and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 dp Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (DEATH PENALTY)
TALBERT v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA ET AL
as 2:2014cv06340
Defendant:
MICHELE FARRELL, LOUIS GIORLA, MICHAEL NUTTER and others
Plaintiff:
CHARLES TALBERT
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
TALBERT v. FARRELL et al
as 2:2014cv06094
Plaintiff:
CHARLES TALBERT
Defendant:
MICHELE FARRELL, DEJESUS, K. PAONE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
DEJESUS v. KERESTES et al
as 5:2014cv04676
Petitioner:
ALEJANDRO DEJESUS
Respondent:
JOHN KERESTES, PA ATTORNEY GENERAL and THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF LANCASTER COUNTY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
DeJesus v. Kerestes et al
as 4:2014cv01521
Petitioner:
Alejandro DeJesus
Respondent:
John Kerestes and PA Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
DEJESUS v. SUPT. SCI-COAL TWP. et al
as 2:2014cv00131
Petitioner:
LUIS DEJESUS
Respondent:
SUPT. SCI-COAL TWP., THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILA. CO. and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
DEJESUS v. ARAMARK FOOD SERVICE, INC. et al
as 2:2013cv05734
Plaintiff:
CARL DEJESUS
Defendant:
ARAMARK FOOD SERVICE, INC., WEED , KRAMER and others
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.
