Cases 11 - 17 of 17
Boslet v. Richmond et al
as 1:2013cv02532
Petitioner:
Frank J. Boslet, Jr.
Respondent:
John M. Richmond , Monroe County Court of Common Pleas , Chief Probation Officer of Monroe County Probation Department and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
BANKS v. UNITED STATES PROBATION DEPARTMENT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA et al
as 2:2013cv01199
Plaintiff:
FREDERICK BANKS
Defendant:
UNITED STATES PROBATION DEPARTMENT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL LITIGATION UNIT and MIKE DOYLE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361
Banks v. United States Probation Department for the Western District of Pennsylvania et al
as 1:2013cv02064
Plaintiff:
Frederick Banks
Defendant:
United States Probation Department for the Western District of Pennsylvania, US Department of Justice Civil Litigation Unit and Mike Doyle
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
KRAFT v. UNITED STATES PROBATION DEPARTMENT et al
as 2:2008cv01426
Petitioner:
RICHARD KRAFT
Respondent:
UNITED STATES PROBATION DEPARTMENT and UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
DILL v. CAMBRIA COUNTY OF PENNSYLVANIA et al
as 3:2008cv00175
Plaintiff:
BARRY E. DILL
Defendant:
CAMBRIA COUNTY OF PENNSYLVANIA, CAMBRIA COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CAMBRIA COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Deubel v. Franklin County Adult Parole and Probation Department et al
as 1:2008cv00261
Plaintiff:
Darrell William Deubel
Defendant:
Franklin County Adult Parole and Probation Department, Brook Alleman and Ed Barrett
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Bishop v. Lapin et al
as 3:2008cv00256
Petitioner:
Carlos Bishop
Respondent:
Warden Lapin, U.S. Probation Department and Unknown Contract Agencies
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
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.
