Cases 1 - 10 of 36
Richard v. Smith et al
as 3:2024cv00089
Plaintiff:
CARL RICHARD
Defendant:
SUPERINTENDENT BARRY SMITH, WELLPATH MEDICAL CO., DR. MUHAMMAD NAJI and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
THOMAS v. OLIVER et al
as 1:2023cv00234
Defendant:
COI H. MAULE, SUPERINTENDENT L. OLIVER, DEPUTY P. THOMPSON and others
Plaintiff:
GREGORY THOMAS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
THOMAS v. OLIVER
as 1:2023cv00030
Plaintiff:
GREGORY THOMAS
Defendant:
SUPERINTENDENT L. OLIVER, DEPUTY P. THOMPSON, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
PEARSON v. LITTLE et al
as 3:2021cv00206
Plaintiff:
ISAAC BILAL PEARSON and ISSAC BILAL PEARSON
Defendant:
GEORGE LITTLE, ERIC W. TICE, Sergeant WOZNIAK and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
RICHARD v. CRAWFORD et al
as 3:2020cv00199
Plaintiff:
CARL RICHARD
Defendant:
CO CRAWFORD, JANET PEARSON and BARRY SMITH
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
SASSE v. WETZEL et al
as 3:2019cv00130
Defendant:
PATRICK NAGLE, REBECCA REIFER, JOHN WETZEL and others
Plaintiff:
CHAD ALLEN SASSE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
PRATER v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
as 3:2019cv00019
Defendant:
PEGGY BARNS, DAVID CLOSE, REBECCA REIFER and others
Plaintiff:
WAYNE PRATER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
PEARSON v. NOEL et al
as 2:2019cv00177
Plaintiff:
RICKY PEARSON
Defendant:
DR. PAUL NOEL, ROBERT GILMORE, MR. HAMMER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
HOLDER v. SMITH et al
as 3:2018cv00134
Plaintiff:
GLYNN A. HOLDER
Defendant:
BARRY R. SMITH, CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, JANET PEARSON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
WILLIAMS v. NAJI et al
as 3:2018cv00110
Plaintiff:
ANTHONY WILLIAMS
Defendant:
DR. MUHAMMED NAJI, JANET PEARSON, PATRICK NAGLE and others
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.
