Cases 21 - 30 of 102
GAGATKO v. BUSH et al
as 2:2018cv00050
Petitioner:
FRANCIS GAGATKO
Respondent:
ERIC BUSH, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
JAMES v. BUSH et al
as 2:2018cv00037
Plaintiff:
MARCUS JAMES
Defendant:
BUSH, J. M. BOYLES and B. D. HEIDE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
MCILWAINE v. BUSH et al
as 2:2017cv05678
Petitioner:
MELVIN MCILWAINE
Respondent:
BUSH, 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
LITTLE v. BUSH
as 2:2017cv01512
Plaintiff:
JONATHAN B. LITTLE
Defendant:
ERIC BUSH
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
FREEMAN v. WETZEL et al
as 2:2017cv01506
Plaintiff:
GARRETT FREEMAN
Defendant:
JOHN E. WETZEL , ERIC BUSH , STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION PINE GROVE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
FARROW v. BUSH et al
as 2:2017cv01169
Plaintiff:
MARQUIS FARROW
Defendant:
ERIC P. BUSH, EVANICHKO, MARSH and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
CAPLE v. BUSH et al
as 2:2017cv03989
Petitioner:
FRANK CAPLE
Respondent:
ERIC P. BUSH, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
WINN v. CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS et al
as 2:2017cv01117
Plaintiff:
JERMAINE WINN
Defendant:
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION PINE GROVE, SUPT. ERIC P. BUSH and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BUSH v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
as 2:2017cv03252
Petitioner:
ROY BUSH
Respondent:
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
BUSH v. KENNEY et al
as 2:2017cv03079
Plaintiff:
CLIFTON BUSH
Defendant:
JIM KENNEY and SETH WILLIAMS
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.
