Cases 11 - 20 of 38
DREW v. WALTON et al
as 2:2018cv01118
Defendant:
JEFF LNU, DAWN BICKERTON, JOHN DOE #1 and others
Plaintiff:
MUSLIMS INCARCERATED IN AMERICA (MIA INC.) and ANTOINE DREW
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
BARNES v. MILLER et al
as 2:2018cv00171
Plaintiff:
BRANDON DANTE BARNES
Defendant:
MILLER, JENKINS, MCGUIRE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
L.O. v. STEVENSON et al
as 5:2018cv00357
Plaintiff:
L.O.
Defendant:
DAVID T. STEVENSON, TAWNIE (TANIA) ROSS , MARK KERN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
PRITCHETT v. MOONEY et al
as 2:2016cv01751
Petitioner:
DREW PRITCHETT
Respondent:
VINCENT MOONEY , ATTORNEY GENERAL, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA and DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
WASHINGTON v. GILMORE et al
as 2:2016cv01714
Plaintiff:
JEROME JUNIOR WASHINGTON
Defendant:
SUPERINTENDENT GILMORE, CART W. SHRADER, MINDY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
WASHINGTON v. GILMORE et al
as 2:2016cv04525
Plaintiff:
JEROME JUNIOR WASHINGTON
Defendant:
SUPERINTENDENT GILMORE, CART W. SHRADER, MINDY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Talley v. Wetzel et al
as 3:2015cv02217
Plaintiff:
Quintez Talley
Defendant:
John E. Wetzel, Tammy Ferguson, Robert Muir and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Chestnut v. Drew
as 3:2015cv01524
Petitioner:
Raymond Edward Chestnut
Respondent:
Darlene Drew
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
DREW v. WETZEL
as 2:2015cv02725
Petitioner:
THOMAS DREW
Respondent:
JOHN E. WETZEL, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
COLEMAN v. MCGARVIE et al
as 1:2015cv00100
Plaintiff:
DREW COLEMAN
Defendant:
NANCIE R. FLYNN MCGARVIE and BEVERLY SUMMERS OROURKE
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.
