Cases 41 - 50 of 78
Teal v. Thompson et al
as 5:2016cv00393
Plaintiff:
Daniel William Teal
Defendant:
Thompson and Mullins
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Williams v. Korines et al
as 9:2016cv01157
Plaintiff:
Daniel Williams
Defendant:
N. Korines, J.T. Smith, M. Liberty and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ELLIS v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS et al
as 2:2016cv05084
Plaintiff:
DANIEL WILLIAM ELLIS
Defendant:
PENNSYLVANIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, JOHN WETZEL, STANZIK and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
John Neuendorf, II v. Unknown Parties, et al
as 16-16565
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JOHN CALVIN NEUENDORF, II, AKA J. Neuendorf, AKA John Calvin Neuendorf
Defendant - Appellee:
UNKNOWN PARTIES, named as: Unknown Partys at Lewis Prison, DANIEL WILLIAMS, ROBERT TRIAS, Corrections Officer III at ASPC Lewis and others
Scudero v. Moran et al
as 5:2016cv00005
Petitioner:
Jim E. Scudero
Respondent:
Jeff Moran, Daniel Marsden, Sr., Albert Smith and others
Cause Of Action: 25 U.S.C. § 640
Williams v. United States of America
as 3:2016cv00852
Petitioner:
Daniel Williams
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Williams v. United States of America
as 6:2016cv00077
Petitioner:
Daniel Williams
Defendant:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Neuendorf #147980 v. Unknown Parties et al
as 2:2016cv01608
Defendant:
Unknown Parties, Daniel Williams, Robert Trias and others
Plaintiff:
John Calvin Neuendorf, II
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Williams v. Diaz et al
as 2:2016cv01296
Defendant:
Captin Diaz, Officer John Doe, John Doe and others
Plaintiff:
Daniel Williams
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Agard v. Castillo et al
as 3:2015cv00854
Plaintiff:
Corey Agard
Defendant:
Juan D Castillo, Marion Feather, Princess Haverly and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
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.
