Cases 81 - 90 of 50,219
MCCARY v. SIMCOX et al
as 2:2024cv01922
Plaintiff:
CAMERON MCCARY
Defendant:
CODY SIMCOX, JOHN DOE, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
STANKO v. USA
as 2:2024cv00682
Plaintiff:
THOMAS GEORGE STANKO
Defendant:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate Sentence
DOE v. CRISTINI et al
as 2:2024cv00336
Plaintiff:
JOHN DOE
Defendant:
R. CRISTINI, E. HURD, D. COULEHAN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Vonville v. Haidle et al
as 1:2024cv00448
Petitioner:
Philip Vonville
Respondent:
Deputy Warden Garry Haidle and Government Of Monroe County
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Conway v. Rivello et al
as 3:2024cv00427
Plaintiff:
Christopher Conway
Defendant:
Superintendent J. Rivello, Captain D. Wendle, C.O. Wakefield and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
TYLER v. HOUSER et al
as 2:2024cv01096
Petitioner:
LANCE TYLER
Respondent:
MORRIS HOUSER, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MICHELLE HENRY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
RUBINOSKI v. ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al.
as 2:2024cv00685
Plaintiff:
MISTER KENNETH RUBINOSKI
Defendant:
PA IG ATTORNEY GENERAL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Civil Rights: Other
HAMILTON v. BROTHERS et al
as 2:2024cv00675
Plaintiff:
SHAWN HAMILTON
Defendant:
MARK BROTHERS, AMY VARNER and DONALD BECHOTA
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
STOCKTON v. IRWIN et al
as 1:2024cv00129
Plaintiff:
RONALD STOCKTON
Defendant:
SUPERINTENDENT RANDY IRWIN and ROSS P. BUSCEMI
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
STOCKTON v. HARRY et al
as 1:2024cv00130
Plaintiff:
RONALD STOCKTON
Defendant:
LAUREL HARRY and SUPERINTENDENT RANDY IRWIN
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.
