Cases 1 - 9 of 9
SWITZER v. COMMOWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA et al.
as 1:2022cv00363
Plaintiff:
KERRY LEE SWITZER, JR.
Defendant:
COMMOWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, BRENDA SERVIDIO, JERI LOUISE BOLTON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
BOWEN v. MONNIE et al
as 1:2022cv00227
Plaintiff:
FREDERICK BOWEN
Defendant:
DEBORAH ANN MONNIE, PATRICK NOSKO, LUKE VOGAN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
WALTERS v. WETZEL et al
as 2:2022cv00771
Plaintiff:
LUKE WALTERS, JR.
Defendant:
JOHN E. WETZEL, ERIC ARMEL, STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION FAYETTE doing business as SCI FAYETTE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
SWITZER v. BISHOP et al
as 1:2021cv00331
Plaintiff:
KERRY LEE SWITZER, JR.
Defendant:
MARK BISHOP, D. SHAWN WHITE, BRENDA SERVIDIO and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
WALTON v. COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, PENNSYLVANIA et al
as 2:2017cv00150
Plaintiff:
LUKE WALTON
Defendant:
COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, PENNSYLVANIA, CHRISTOPHER AVETTA and SHELLEY ROHRER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SPUCK v. THOMPSON et al
as 3:2014cv00219
Petitioner:
DANIEL LUKE SPUCK
Respondent:
BRIAN THOMPSON and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
ELLIS v. REGAN et al
as 2:2014cv00004
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL ELLIS
Defendant:
DANIEL D. REGAN, NATHAN HARPER, REGINA MCDONALD and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
MILLHOFF v. BENSON et al
as 2:2009cv01679
Plaintiff:
DARREN GLENN MILLHOFF
Defendant:
MARK BENSON, ERIC MILLER, LUKE NELSON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
SPUCK v. STOWITSKY et al
as 3:2008cv00276
Petitioner:
DANIEL LUKE SPUCK
Respondent:
PAUL STOWITSKY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF CLEARFIELD, PENNSYLVANIA and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
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.
