Cases 31 - 40 of 61
PRISONERS UNITED TOGETHER ETAL et al v. WOLF
as 2:2015cv05431
Defendant:
TOM WOLF, KATHLEEN KANE, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA and others
Plaintiff:
JOEZIEL VAZQUEZ
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ROMAN v. PRIME CARE INC. et al
as 5:2014cv03723
Plaintiff:
ANGEL LUIS ROMAN
Defendant:
PRIME CARE INC., SWEENEY, WILSON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Sanders v. DeRose et al
as 1:2014cv00288
Plaintiff:
Cyrus R Sanders
Defendant:
Dominick L. DeRose, Jeffrey T. Haste, Frank J. Laverty, Esq. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ROSE v. NUTTER et al
as 2:2013cv05962
Plaintiff:
MANUEL ROSE
Defendant:
MICHAEL NUTTER, LOUIS GIORLA and M. FARRELL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ROSE v. UNITED STATES
as 2:2013cv05847
Plaintiff:
CARL ROSE
Defendant:
UNITED STATES
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Wicks v. Macbenlee-Brown et al
as 3:2013cv02048
Petitioner:
David Bryant Wicks
Respondent:
Renita Camile Macbenlee-Brown, Colleran Firm & Associates, Vani Dadolu and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Rose v. United States of America
as 1:2013cv00076
Plaintiff:
Gregory Rose
Defendant:
United States of America
Mediator:
Mediator
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
DINKINS v. SUPERINTENDENT OF THE PENNSYLVANIA CORRECTION INSTITUTION AT MUNCY, PA
as 2:2012cv01314
Petitioner:
ROSE M. DINKINS
Respondent:
SUPERINTENDENT OF THE PENNSYLVANIA CORRECTION INSTITUTION AT MUNCY, PA and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
TALBERT v. GIORLA et al
as 2:2012cv03374
Plaintiff:
CHARLES TALBERT
Defendant:
LOUIS GIORLA, JOHN DELANEY, L. MARQUEZ and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ROSE v. VARANO et al
as 2:2012cv00020
Petitioner:
ANTHONY MICHAEL ROSE
Respondent:
DAVID VARANO , ALLEGHENY COUNTY OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY and PA STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
