Cases 1 - 10 of 90
IN RE: GARVIN
as 2:2024cv01837
Plaintiff:
UMAR GARVIN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
GARVIN v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA et al
as 2:2024cv00945
Plaintiff:
UMAR GARVIN
Defendant:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA and CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER COURT HOUSE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
USA v. Anthony Garvin
as 23-2729
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
ANTHONY GARVIN
ROSA-DIAZ v. LITTLE et al
as 2:2023cv02971
Plaintiff:
GABRIEL ROSA-DIAZ
Defendant:
GEORGE LITTLE, LAUREL HARRY, TAMMY FERGUSON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
GARVIN v. PHILADELPHIA CITY et al
as 2:2023cv02872
Plaintiff:
UMAR GARVIN
Defendant:
PHILADELPHIA CITY, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA and STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
GARVIN v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
as 2:2023cv02874
Petitioner:
UMAR GARVIN
Respondent:
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC. v. WESTY'S INC. et al
as 2:2023cv00185
Plaintiff:
JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC.
Defendant:
WESTY'S INC. doing business as WEST TAVERN, ALEXANDRA CONVERY, THERESA WEST and others
Cause Of Action: 17 U.S.C. § 501 Copyright Infringement
GARVIN v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
as 2:2023cv00204
Plaintiff:
UMAR GARVIN
Defendant:
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
GARVIN v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al
as 2:2022cv03432
Petitioner:
UMAR GARVIN
Respondent:
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA and SUPERINTENDANT MS. MASON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
GARVIN v. CRIMINIAL JUSTICE CENTER et al
as 2:2022cv03357
Plaintiff:
UMAR GARVIN
Defendant:
CRIMINIAL JUSTICE CENTER and CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
