Cases 31 - 40 of 42
MCCRARY v. THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al
as 2:2010cv07074
Plaintiff:
RANDOLPH MCCRARY
Defendant:
THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, MICHAEL NUTTER, LOUIS GIOLLA and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
RANDOLPH v. C.F.C.F.
as 2:2010cv05078
Plaintiff:
DERRICK RANDOLPH
Defendant:
C.F.C.F.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
v. RANDOLPH et al
as 2:2010cv03793
Plaintiff:
SHAFF RANDOLPH
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
RANDOLPH v. DAVIS et al
as 2:2010cv03492
Plaintiff:
SHAFF EUGENE RANDOLPH
Defendant:
SCOTT DAVIS, CEO-UPS, JOHN DOE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
YOUNG v. CURRAN FROMHOLD CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
as 2:2010cv01506
Plaintiff:
RANDOLPH RANDY YOUNG
Defendant:
CURRAN FROMHOLD CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
BARKSDALE v. KLOPOTOSKI et al
as 2:2009cv02658
Petitioner:
RANDOLPH BARKSDALE
Respondent:
MICHAEL D. KLOPOTOSKI, 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 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Boyce v. Mukasey et al
as 3:2008cv00580
Petitioner:
Hillary Randolph Boyce
Respondent:
Michael Mukasey, Thomas Decker, Michael Chertoff and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
RUOSS v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA et al
as 5:2008cv00172
Petitioner:
RANDOLPH DON RUOSS
Respondent:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF LANCASTER and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
RICHES v. DYKSTRA et al
as 2:2007cv01740
Plaintiff:
JONATHAN LEE RICHES
Defendant:
LENNY DYKSTRA, GARY SHEFFIELD, DAVID JUSTICE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
JACOBS v. BEARD et al
as 2:2007cv00514
Plaintiff:
ANDRE JACOBS
Defendant:
JEFFREY BEARD, JOHN SHAFFER, FRED MAUE and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
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.
