Cases 11 - 20 of 42
Buzzard v. Jividen et al
as 2:2018cv00548
Plaintiff:
David Dean Buzzard, Jr.
Defendant:
Betsy Jividen, Karen Pszczolkowski, Randall S. Mutter and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Randy Cordle v. Amanda Sabatino
as 17-7374
Plaintiff - Appellant:
RANDY CORDLE
Defendant - Appellee:
AMANDA SABATINO, LPN, JIM RUBENSTEIN, Commissioner, WVDOC, KAREN PSZCZOLKOWSKI, Warden, Northern Correctional Facility and others
Defendant:
JANE DOE, Nurse, Northern Correctional Facility Staff
ELY v. PSZCZOLKOWSKI et al
as 2:2017cv00893
Petitioner:
GEORGE F. ELY
Respondent:
KAREN PSZCZOLKOWSKI, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Heavener v. Pszczolkowski
as 1:2017cv00013
Petitioner:
Ferlin Heavener
Respondent:
Karen Pszczolkowski
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Holcomb v. Pszczolkowski
as 3:2017cv00007
Plaintiff:
Ronald W. Holcomb
Defendant:
Karen Pszczolkowski
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Simmons v. Pszczolkowski et al
as 3:2017cv00003
Petitioner:
Tex B. Simmons
Respondent:
Karen Pszczolkowski and Patrick Morrisey
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Rodger Dale Mitchell v. Karen Pszczolkowski
as 16-7434
Petitioner - Appellant:
RODGER DALE MITCHELL
Respondent - Appellee:
KAREN PSZCZOLKOWSKI
Dreyfuse v. Pszczolkowski et al
as 3:2016cv06717
Petitioner:
Edward Jess Dreyfuse
Respondent:
Karen Pszczolkowski and State of West Virginia
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Harding v. Rubenstein et al
as 1:2016cv00173
Plaintiff:
Smitty Harding
Defendant:
Jim Rubenstein, Karen Pszczolkowski, Cecelia Janiszewski and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Riley v. Pszczolkowski et al
as 5:2016cv00122
Plaintiff:
Mark Riley
Defendant:
Karen Pszczolkowski, Ryan Adams and Sharon Y. Hanke
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.
