Cases 61 - 70 of 125
BAILEY v. ECHARD
as 2:2014cv01626
Petitioner:
VANN LAMONT BAILEY
Respondent:
J. ECHARD
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
BAILEY v. SCI ALBION et al
as 1:2014cv00267
Petitioner:
MICHAEL A. BAILEY
Respondent:
SCI ALBION, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA (KATHLEEN KANE) and DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF ERIE COUNTY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
BAILEY v. COMMONWEALTH OF PA
as 2:2014cv01362
Petitioner:
MICHAEL A. BAILEY
Respondent:
COMMONWEALTH OF PA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
BAILEY et al v. ROZUM et al
as 3:2014cv00206
Plaintiff:
DEMETRIUS BAILEY, JAYENECA BAILEY, DENISE BAILEY and others
Defendant:
GERALD ROZUM, SYLVIA GIBSON, DANIEL GEHLMANN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Bailey v. Religious Accomodation Committe, et al.
as 3:2014cv01776
Plaintiff:
Demetrius Bailey
Defendant:
Religious Accommodation Committee, John E Wezel, Vincent Mooney and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
BAILEY v. CAMERON
as 3:2014cv00121
Petitioner:
DEMETRIUS BAILEY
Respondent:
KENNETH CAMERON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
HICKOX v. COUNTY OF BLAIR et al
as 3:2014cv00089
Plaintiff:
JUSTIN M. HICKOX
Defendant:
COUNTY OF BLAIR , BLAIR COUNTY PRISON , MICHAEL JOHNSTON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Bailey v. Ebbert
as 3:2013cv02818
Petitioner:
Ari Bailey
Respondent:
David J Ebbert
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Clifton et al v. Religious Accommodation Committee et al
as 3:2013cv02680
Plaintiff:
Derek Clifton, Leonards Quattlebaum, Eric Maple and others
Defendant:
Religious Accommodation Committee, John E. Wetzel, Vincent Mooney and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
BAILEY et al v. THE PHILADELPHIA PRISON SYSTEM et al
as 2:2013cv06327
Plaintiff:
NIEM T. BAILEY, KEVIN JOHNSON and BRYAN JONES
Defendant:
THE PHILADELPHIA PRISON SYSTEM, MICHELLE FARRELL, GIORLA LOUIS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
