Cases 1 - 10 of 17
THOMAS v. INVISION HUMAN SERVICES
as 2:2021cv01850
Plaintiff:
VINCENT THOMAS
Defendant:
INVISION HUMAN SERVICES
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442
WALLACE v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA et al
as 2:2021cv01348
Petitioner:
VINCENT THOMAS WALLACE
Respondent:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE and WARDEN OF SCI-ROCKVIEW
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Wallace v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al
as 1:2021cv01719
Petitioner:
Vincent Thomas Wallace
Respondent:
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office and Warden of SCI-Rockview
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Vincent ThomasIn re: Vincent Thomas
as 19-2802
Petitioner:
In re: VINCENT THOMAS
Respondent:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY DELAWARE COUNTY
Thomas v. Mahally et al
as 1:2017cv00591
Petitioner:
Vincent Thomas
Respondent:
Lawrence P Mahally, PA Board of Probation and Parole and PA State Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Thomas v. Potteiger et al
as 1:2014cv02323
Petitioner:
Vincent Thomas
Respondent:
Michael Potteiger, Randy Feather, James C. Fox and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Vincent Thomas v. Thomas McGarrigle
as 14-3920
Plaintiff - Appellant:
VINCENT THOMAS
Defendant - Appellee:
THOMAS J. MCGARRIGLE, Chairman, MARIO CIVERA, JR., Chairman-Vice, COLLEEN P. MORRONE, Board Member and others
THOMAS v. MCGARRIGLE et al
as 2:2014cv04757
Plaintiff:
VINCENT THOMAS
Defendant:
TOM MCGARRIGLE, MARIO J. CIVERA, JR., COLLEEN P. MORRONE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
In re: Vincent Thoma
as 14-1277
Petitioner:
In re: VINCENT THOMAS
Respondent:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY DELAWARE COUNTY
THOMAS v. WALSH et al
as 2:2013cv04759
Petitioner:
VINCENT THOMAS
Respondent:
JEROME W. WALSH and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
