Cases 41 - 50 of 60
CABAN v. USA
as 5:2011cv02747
Plaintiff:
ROSE EILEEN CABAN
Defendant:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
ROSE v. MCGRADY et al
as 3:2011cv00253
Plaintiff:
Raymond P. Rose
Defendant:
James McGrady, Joseph Mataloni, John Chopkopak and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ROSE v. MCGRADY et al
as 2:2010cv07400
Plaintiff:
RAYMOND P. ROSE
Defendant:
JAMES MCGRADY, JOSEPH MATALONI, JOHN CHOPKOPAK and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hawkins v. PA. Department of Corrections et al
as 1:2010cv02568
Plaintiff:
Reginald Hawkins
Defendant:
PA. Department of Corrections , S.C.I. - Huntingdon , R.M. Lawler and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Sanders v. Rose et al
as 1:2010cv01241
Plaintiff:
Cyrus R Sanders
Defendant:
Emanuel Rose, Hewitt, Counselor "Jill and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
RATHY v. RENDALL et al
as 2:2010cv00802
Plaintiff:
GEORGE FRANKLIN RATHY, SR.
Defendant:
EDWARD G. RENDALL, THOMAS W. CORBETT, JR., JEFFREY B. MILLER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Fitzgerald v. Bellino et al
as 3:2010cv00667
Petitioner:
Darlene M. Fitzgerald
Respondent:
John Bellino, Cathy Stamets, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
ROSE v. MCGRADY et al
as 1:2009cv00217
Petitioner:
RAYMOND P. ROSE
Respondent:
JAMES MCGRADY, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF ERIE and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Rose v. Cornell Companies Inc et al
as 3:2009cv00157
Plaintiff:
Colin Rose
Defendant:
CORNELL COMPANIES INC., M. MILLWARD, LT. PHILLIPS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
ROSE V. MILLWARD, ET AL.
as 3:2009cv00146
Plaintiff:
COLIN ROSE
Defendant:
M. MILLWARD, E. MORRIS, W. NOWELL and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
