Cases 11 - 20 of 64
Bogle v. Zaken et al
as 2:2022cv00240
Petitioner:
Floyd C. Bogle
Respondent:
MICHAEL ZAKEN and PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Bogle v. Zaken et al
as 3:2022cv00071
Petitioner:
Floyd C. Bogle
Respondent:
Michael Zaken and Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
DEANS v. FLOYD
as 1:2021cv00362
Plaintiff:
DARRIAN DEANS
Defendant:
AUGUSTUS FLOYD
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
BULLARD v. CARNEY et al
as 2:2021cv05158
Plaintiff:
JAMES BULLARD
Defendant:
BLANCHE CARNEY, MICHELLE FARRELL, DEPUTY WILLIAMS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ABDUL-JABBAR et al v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al
as 2:2021cv02077
Plaintiff:
SHATISHA ABDUL-JABBAR, AL-AMIN ABDUL-JABBAR, SHARON BELL and others
Defendant:
OFFICER NATHAN LONDON, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
FLOYD v. PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE
as 2:2020cv05610
Respondent:
PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE
Petitioner:
JOHN H. FLOYD
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
FLOYD et al v. PITTSBURGH BUREAU OF POLICE et al
as 2:2020cv00931
Respondent:
TOM WOLF, ORLANDO HARPER, PITTSBURGH BUREAU OF POLICE and others
Petitioner:
River Silverelk, Laura Michelle Schlemmer, FREDERICK BANKS and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
NOLEN v. DR. TOLNAY et al
as 1:2020cv00140
Defendant:
DMD DR. TOLNAY and PA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Plaintiff:
FLOYD J. NOLEN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
DICKSON v. ENNIS et al
as 1:2020cv00001
Defendant:
MR. FLOYD, BRYAN E. FLINCHBAUGH, PAUL A. ENNIS and others
Plaintiff:
JAMES ELIAH DICKSON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
JONES v. CLARK, et al
as 1:2019cv00287
Defendant:
MICHAEL E. CLARK, LT. HARMON, AGUSTUS FLOYD and others
Plaintiff:
SHAMEL JONES
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
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.
