Cases 51 - 60 of 120
Johnny Chandler v. Danielle Mink, et al
as 13-2574
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JOHNNY RAY CHANDLER
Defendant:
DANIELLE MINK, KENT CANNON and LAWRENCE KARPIN
Chandler v. Mink et al
as 1:2013cv01211
Plaintiff:
Johnny Ray Chandler
Defendant:
Danielle Mink, Kent Cannon and Lawrence Karpin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
PEARCE v. PHILADELPHIA PRISON SYSTEM
as 2:2013cv01256
Plaintiff:
MITCHELL KENT PEARCE
Defendant:
PHILADELPHIA PRISON SYSTEM
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Anthony Matthews v. Norristown State Hospital, et al
as 13-1231
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ANTHONY MATTHEWS
Defendant - Appellee:
NORRISTOWN STATE HOSPITAL, V AYYASWAMY, Dr., JEREMY SALAMON and others
Hill v. Bethea et al
as 3:2013cv00174
Plaintiff:
Howard L. Hill, II
Defendant:
D. Bethea, R. Danchise, G. Lee and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
FREEMAN, ET AL v. CURAN-FROMHOLD CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, et al
as 2:2013cv00367
Plaintiff:
RAYMOND KENT FREEMAN, LARRY JOHNSON and LEWIS K. HILL
Defendant:
CURAN-FROMHOLD CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, HOUSE OF CORRECTION, THE WARDEN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Johnny Chandler v. Kent Cannon, et al
as 12-4449
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JOHNNY RAY CHANDLER
Defendant - Appellee:
KENT CANNON and DANIELLE MINK
Chandler v. Cannon et al
as 3:2012cv02350
Plaintiff:
Johnny Ray Chandler
Defendant:
Kent W Cannon and Danielle Mink
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
MATTHEWS v. NORRISTOWN STATE HOSPITAL et al
as 2:2012cv02043
Plaintiff:
ANTHONY MATTHEWS
Defendant:
NORRISTOWN STATE HOSPITAL, V. AYYASWAMY, JEREMY SALAMON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Baker v. Markell et al
as 1:2012cv00443
Plaintiff:
Wayne T. Baker
Defendant:
Jack A. Markell, Matthew Denn, Jeffrey W. Bullock 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.
