Cases 1 - 8 of 8
RICKER v. PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE et al
as 2:2024cv01512
Respondent:
PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE and SUPERINTENDENT OF PINE GROVE SCI
Petitioner:
DAVID RICKER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
RICKER v. SCI PINE GROVE et al
as 2:2024cv00273
Petitioner:
DAVID EDWARD RICKER
Respondent:
SUPERINTENDANT SCI PINE GROVE, PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, SUPERINTENDENT SCI PINE GROVE and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
RICKER v. ESTOCK et al
as 3:2023cv00279
Petitioner:
David Edward Ricker
Respondent:
L. J. Estock, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and District Attorney (of) Dauphin County
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
RICKER v. ESTOCK et al
as 2:2023cv00084
Petitioner:
DAVID EDWARD RICKER
Respondent:
L. J. ESTOCK, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF DAUPHIN COUNTY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Ricker v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections et al
as 3:2021cv00467
Plaintiff:
David Ricker
Defendant:
LPN Pieczynski, CJ McKeown, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
HOWARD v. BOROUGH OF BUTLER POLICE DEPT. et al
as 2:2018cv00800
Plaintiff:
DYLAN J. HOWARD
Defendant:
BOROUGH OF BUTLER POLICE DEPT., JORGE REYES, SCOTT T. RICKER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
FIGUEROA v. LAMBERT et al
as 5:2015cv03572
Plaintiff:
MARIO JESUS FIGUEROA
Defendant:
LAMBERT, CHELBOWSKI, STAHLNECKER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Parker v. The United States of America et al
as 3:2009cv00196
Plaintiff:
Danny Parker
Defendant:
The United States of America, Atef A. Aboulfatch, T. Tubpin and others
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
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.
