Cases 31 - 40 of 231
MCCRAY v. WETZEL et al
as 3:2020cv00139
Defendant:
PRESIDENT, C.E.O., OWNER ACCREDITATION, AUDIT AND RISK MANAGEMENT SECURITY, LLC and SECRETARY JOHN E. WETZEL
Plaintiff:
DERRICK MCCRAY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
WALSH v. WETZEL et al
as 1:2020cv00118
Defendant:
KEVIN COWAN, JOHN DOES #1-20, JOHN WETZEL and others
Plaintiff:
JACOB DANIEL WALSH
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
BRAGG v. PILLAI et al
as 2:2020cv00581
Defendant:
DR. PUSHKALAI PILLAI, ROBERT GILMORE, TRACY SHAWLEY and others
Plaintiff:
DERRICK N. BRAGG
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
Johnson v. Warden of SCI-Smithfield
as 1:2020cv00251
Respondent:
Warden of SCI-Smithfield and Pennsylvania Attorney General Office
Petitioner:
Derrick Eugene Johnson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
MCCRAY v. TICE et al
as 2:2020cv00360
Respondent:
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF BUCKS COUNTY, PA., THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and SUPERINTENDENT TICE
Petitioner:
DERRICK MCCRAY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
HARPER v. DOE et al
as 1:2019cv00333
Defendant:
MELISSA M. PETERSON, DORINA VARNER, DERRICK F. OBERLANDER and others
Plaintiff:
RICKY CHARLES HARPER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
FORMAN v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY et al
as 2:2019cv05300
Defendant:
CORRECTIONS OFFICER JOHN DOE NO. 1, CORRECTIONS OFFICER YOCUM, MONTGOMERY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY and others
Plaintiff:
DERRICK FORMAN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Underwood v. Finley
as 1:2019cv01803
Petitioner:
Dwayne Underwood and Derrick Royal
Respondent:
Warden Scott Finley
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
KING v. TOSSONE
as 5:2019cv02320
Defendant:
SGT. TOSSONE
Plaintiff:
DERRICK L. KING
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
McIntosh v. Ebbert
as 3:2019cv00468
Respondent:
Warden David J. Ebbert
Petitioner:
Derrick P. McIntosh
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
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.
