Cases 11 - 20 of 6,522
MUHAMMAD v. ARMFIELD et al
as 2:2024cv02553
Petitioner:
WALID ABDULLAH MUHAMMAD
Respondent:
JAMES ARMFIELD, AL MILES, WILBUR JONES and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
SANTIAGO v. PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BNI AGENT JONES BADGE 659 et al
as 2:2024cv02484
Plaintiff:
DAVID T. SANTIAGO
Defendant:
PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BNI AGENT JONES BADGE 659 and BNI AGENT JOHN/JANE DOE 1 - 10
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Nicholas Edwards, et al v. J. Rivello, et al
as 24-2031
Plaintiff:
NICHOLAS EDWARDS, JOHN HIGHTOWER, MUWSA GREEN and others
Defendant:
JOHN RIVELLO, Warden SCI-Huntingdon, A. WAKEFIELD, Facility Grievance Coordinator, N. DAVIS, Medical Department Supervisor and others
LUCAS et al v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON et al
as 3:2024cv06821
Plaintiff:
JAMES LUCAS and THE ESTATE OF PATRICIA JONES
Defendant:
JOHNSON & JOHNSON, JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., LTL MANAGEMENT, LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
JONES v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
as 2:2024cv02340
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER LOREN JONES
Defendant:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
JONES v. FEDERAL POLICES et al
as 2:2024cv02322
Plaintiff:
LOUSEVEJO JONES
Defendant:
FEDERAL POLICES, PHILADELPHIA POLICES and D.O.C. GREEN COUNTY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Matthew Jones v. Fouad El Chidiak
as 24-1950
Plaintiff:
MATTHEW JONES
Defendant:
DR. FOUAD EL CHIDIAK
Jones v. United States
as 1:2024cv00869
Plaintiff:
Joshua Anthony Jones
Defendant:
United States
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
JONES v. SYMONETTE et al
as 2:2024cv02249
Plaintiff:
ELAINE JONES
Defendant:
ALLAN A. SYMONETTE, BOISE BUTLER, JAMILLA HASBEN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
