Cases 11 - 20 of 20
GOLSON et al v. BLAIR COUNTY PRISON et al
as 2:2015cv06285
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM GOLSON and SHYANNE WEYANDT
Defendant:
BLAIR COUNTY PRISON, CRAWFORD, GARMAN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DAVIS v. WARDEN et al
as 2:2015cv02454
Plaintiff:
IVAN BLAIR DAVIS
Defendant:
WARDEN, MAJOR, CAPTIAN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
THOMAS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
as 2:2015cv00085
Petitioner:
BLAIR THOMAS, JR.
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ZANE DAVID MEMEGER and JESSICA NATALI
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
NADAL v. BLAIR COUNTY PRISON
as 2:2012cv06282
Plaintiff:
BILLY NADAL
Defendant:
BLAIR COUNTY PRISON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
RUCKER v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al
as 2:2011cv05417
Plaintiff:
BLAIR RUCKER
Defendant:
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA and MENTAL HEALTH MANAGEMENT
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DAVIS v. ROZAM et al
as 2:2010cv05968
Plaintiff:
IVAN BLAIR DAVIS
Defendant:
GERALD ROZAM, LINDA M.K. LUDGATE, KEVIN D. GILLESPIE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DAVIS v. ROZUM et al
as 5:2010cv04412
Petitioner:
IVAN BLAIR DAVIS
Respondent:
GERALD ROZUM, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF BERKS COUNTY and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF TOM CORBATT
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
DAVIS v. GAUBY et al
as 2:2010cv04410
Plaintiff:
IVAN BLAIR DAVIS
Defendant:
THOMAS M. GAUBY, SR, ET. AL, POLICE DEPT. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DAVIS v. LUDGATE, et al
as 5:2010cv03165
Plaintiff:
IVAN BLAIR DAVIS
Defendant:
LINDA K.M. LUDGATE, KEVIN D. GILLESPIE, KEVIN M. BEALS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DAVIS v. BEARD et al
as 5:2009cv05078
Petitioner:
IVAN BLAIR DAVIS
Respondent:
JEFFREY BEARD, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF BERKS, PENN. 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.
