Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Steven Woodson, Jr. v. Jodi Sheesley, et al
as 23-2942
Plaintiff / Appellant:
STEVEN W. WOODSON, JR.
Defendant / Appellee:
JODI SHEESLEY, BRIAN SIMONS, ANGEL GRESSEL and others
Talley v. Harry et al
as 1:2023cv01033
Plaintiff:
Quintez Talley
Defendant:
Dr. Laurel Harry, MHM, Inc., Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Heyward v. Oberlander et al
as 4:2022cv01454
Plaintiff:
Joseph Heyward
Defendant:
Derek Oberlander, Rene Adams-Kinezel, Ernest Mongelluzzo and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act
MEDINA v. JONES et al
as 1:2022cv00073
Plaintiff:
MARIO MEDINA
Defendant:
OFFICER JONES, SERGEANT WINGER, JOHN DOE 1 and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 cr Notice of Removal - Civil Rights
EASLEY v. WETZEL et al
as 1:2021cv00063
Plaintiff:
WAYNE EASLEY and WARREN EASLEY
Defendant:
MONGILUZZO, JOHN BLICHA, JOHN WETZEL and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
WOODSON v. SHEESLEY et al
as 1:2020cv00310
Defendant:
JODI SHEESLEY, BRIAN SIMONS, I. GUSTAFSON and others
Plaintiff:
STEVEN W. WOODSON, JR.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
EASLEY v. OBERLANDER et al
as 1:2020cv00156
Plaintiff:
WARREN EASLEY
Defendant:
JOHN VETZEL, ERNIE MANGELUZZO, DR. WRIGHT and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
EASLEY v. OPERLANDER et al
as 1:2020cv00151
Defendant:
JOHN WETZEL, TABE BICKELL, DR. WRIGHT and others
Plaintiff:
WARREN EASLEY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
WOODS v. MALANOSKI et al
as 2:2017cv00017
Plaintiff:
JEROME CARLTON WOODS
Defendant:
MAUREEN MALANOSKI, CANDICE LACKEY, DAVID E. ZETWO and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
RAY v. SIVILLI et al
as 2:2014cv02741
Plaintiff:
JAMES R. RAY, III
Defendant:
NANCY SIVILLI and LESLIE RENEE ADAMS, ESQ.
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.
