Cases 11 - 20 of 38
ELLMAN et al v. QUIGLEY et al
as 5:2018cv00258
Plaintiff:
BRIAN ELLMAN, NIGEL SANTANA, DAVE BELINDA and others
Defendant:
JANINE QUIGLEY, STEPHANIE SMITH, CASTRO and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ARROYO v. NORTHAMPTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
as 5:2017cv02667
Plaintiff:
JORGE LUIS ARROYO
Defendant:
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, DAVID PENCHISEN, DANIEL S. KEEN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ALLEN v. STELLIS et al
as 2:2017cv00652
Plaintiff:
BRIAN DEON ALLEN
Defendant:
RYAN ELLIS and RONALD COLEMAN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BANKS v. SHANK et al
as 2:2016cv06504
Plaintiff:
MARVIN BANKS
Defendant:
MICHAEL SHANK, TOLBERT, FAKOLEE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ELLIS v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS et al
as 2:2016cv05084
Plaintiff:
DANIEL WILLIAM ELLIS
Defendant:
PENNSYLVANIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, JOHN WETZEL, STANZIK and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
CROFT v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 2:2016cv03212
Plaintiff:
ELLIS CROFT
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
MATHEWS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 2:2016cv02679
Petitioner:
ELLIS W. MATHEWS, JR.
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
ELLIS v. CURRAN FROMHOLD CORRECTIONAL FACILITY (CFCF) SUPERINTENDENT et al
as 2:2016cv00499
Plaintiff:
JAMES ELLIS
Defendant:
CURRAN FROMHOLD CORRECTIONAL FACILITY (CFCF) SUPERINTENDENT, GYM OFC JOHN DOE - 1 and JANE DOE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ELLIS v. THE CITY OF HARRISBURG, PA. et al
as 2:2013cv03397
Petitioner:
CRAIG ELLIS
Respondent:
THE CITY OF HARRISBURG, PA., JOHN AND JANE DOE, MARY ROSETTA and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
ELLIS v. THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al
as 2:2013cv01497
Plaintiff:
CRAIG ELLIS
Defendant:
THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, EDWARD DAVIS, TERENCE MCNEIL and others
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.
