Cases 31 - 40 of 78
ELLIS v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS et al
as 2:2016cv05084
Plaintiff:
DANIEL WILLIAM ELLIS
Defendant:
PENNSYLVANIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, JOHN WETZEL, STANZIK and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
CROFT v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 2:2016cv03212
Plaintiff:
ELLIS CROFT
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Christian v. Green et al
as 3:2016cv01168
Plaintiff:
Julio Christian
Defendant:
Michael Green, James Ellis, Cindy Johnson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
MATHEWS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 2:2016cv02679
Petitioner:
ELLIS W. MATHEWS, JR.
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
ELLIS v. CURRAN FROMHOLD CORRECTIONAL FACILITY (CFCF) SUPERINTENDENT et al
as 2:2016cv00499
Plaintiff:
JAMES ELLIS
Defendant:
CURRAN FROMHOLD CORRECTIONAL FACILITY (CFCF) SUPERINTENDENT, GYM OFC JOHN DOE - 1 and JANE DOE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ELLIS v. CAPOZZA et al
as 2:2015cv01684
Petitioner:
MICHAEL ELLIS
Respondent:
MARK V. CAPOZZA, BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Christian v. Johnson et al
as 3:2015cv00284
Plaintiff:
Julio Christian
Defendant:
Cindy S. Johnson, James Ellis, Michael Green and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
CABBAGESTALK v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WESTERN DIST et al
as 2:2014cv01677
Plaintiff:
MARVIN CABBAGESTALK
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WESTERN DIST, HUDSON and ELLIS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
FONTROY v. WETZEL et al
as 3:2014cv00165
Plaintiff:
DERRICK DALE FONTROY
Defendant:
JOHN WETZEL, RICHARD ELLIS, REX BETNER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
GLASS v. ROZUM et al
as 3:2014cv00061
Plaintiff:
KAREEM GLASS
Defendant:
GERALD L. ROZUM, DR. MAHMUD, MS. SWANHART 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.
