Cases 11 - 20 of 1,480
Bailey v. McClain et al (INMATE 2)
as 3:2024cv00157
Plaintiff:
James Leslie Bailey
Defendant:
Antonio McClain and Randolph County
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
D.W. v. United States Parole Commission et al
as 1:2024cv01870
Plaintiff:
D.W.
Defendant:
United States Parole Commission, Patricia K. Cushwa and Susan Randolph
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
GRIMES v. VANIHEL et al
as 2:2024cv00065
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM R. GRIMES
Defendant:
FRANK VANIHEL, COOPER, RANDY PERCELL and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
EVANS v. RUTLEDGE et al
as 1:2024cv00364
Plaintiff:
ROBERT EVANS
Defendant:
MELISSA RUTLEDGE, BRYAN VANDERVORT and ISAAC RANDOLPH
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Randolph v. Marcucci
as 3:2024cv00243
Plaintiff:
Anthony M. Randolph
Defendant:
Marcucci
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
LAMBERT v. RANDOLPH COUNTY COURT
as 1:2024cv00148
Petitioner:
BRANSON LAMBERT
Respondent:
RANDOLPH COUNTY COURT
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Grimes v. Vanihel et al
as 1:2024cv00076
Plaintiff:
William R. Grimes
Defendant:
Frank Vanihel, Mrs. Cooper, Randy Russell and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Kelly v. Schnurr, et al
as 24-3019
Plaintiff:
TERRANCE J. KELLY
Defendant:
DAN SCHNURR, FRED EARLY, JOHN CANNON and others
TORAN v. RANDOLPH et al
as 2:2024cv00044
Plaintiff:
MILES TORAN
Defendant:
ISSAC RANDOLPH, CARLA COAKLEY, MADISEN GILBERT and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Randolph v. Keith et al
as 3:2024cv00228
Petitioner:
Shawn Luke Randolph
Respondent:
Jessica Keith and Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office
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.
