Cases 71 - 80 of 133
Brito v. Capitol Pavillion et al
as 3:2015cv01760
Plaintiff:
Santiago DeJesus Brito
Defendant:
Capitol Pavillion and Jennifer Bowser
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
REDDY v. CHRISTIAN et al
as 2:2015cv04930
Plaintiff:
KEITH REDDY
Defendant:
S. CHRISTIAN, "JANE DOE, BEUFORT and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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
AKUBU v. WISEBACK et al
as 2:2015cv03399
Plaintiff:
JONATHAN AKUBU
Defendant:
WISEBACK, TRACY GRANT-PRATT, TYREE HOLMES-IRVIN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
MARTINEZ et al v. MCDONALD
as 2:2015cv01247
Plaintiff:
AQUILES MARTINEZ and YESENIA DEJESUS
Defendant:
THOMAS MCDONALD
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
SCOTT v. FRED BEANS CHEVROLET OF LIMERICK, INC. et al
as 2:2015cv01071
Plaintiff:
ALICIA SCOTT
Defendant:
FRED BEANS CHEVROLET OF LIMERICK, INC., TIMOTHY E. DEJESUS, MATTHEW D. DYMIT and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1691 Equal Credit Opportunity Act
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)
DEJESUS v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al
as 2:2015cv00260
Plaintiff:
YAMIKA SIERRA DEJESUS
Defendant:
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA and MIKE SZELAGOWSKI
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
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.
