Cases 1 - 10 of 29
Kuhl et al v. Garland
as 1:2024cv00485
Petitioner:
Thomas Benjamin Kuhl and David James Kuhl
Respondent:
Merrick Garland
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Kuhl v. Mendham
as 1:2024cv00428
Petitioner:
Thomas Benjamin Kuhl
Respondent:
Bob Mendham
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Kuhl v. Bureau of Prisons et al
as 1:2024cv00239
Plaintiff:
Samuel Alexander Kuhl
Defendant:
Bureau of Prisons, United States Marshal Service, Merrick Garland and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
SMITH v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA et al
as 2:2024cv00925
Plaintiff:
CURTIS GREGORY SMITH, JR.
Defendant:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, MIDDLETOWN TOWNSHIP and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Antwone Stokes v. Kuhl et al
as 2:2021cv09517
Plaintiff:
Antwone Stokes
Defendant:
Office Kuhl, Unknown Last Name Sgt., Sanchez and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Kuhl et al v. Fields et al
as 2:2021cv00057
Defendant:
Brett Eyckmans, Marc Fields, John Does and others
Plaintiff:
Charles Kuhl and Kathleen Kuhl
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Gregory v. Jeffreys et al
as 1:2021cv01097
Plaintiff:
Cory Gregory and Harli Quinn
Defendant:
. Henry, Leonta Jackson, . Renzi and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Bailey #730664 v. Bailey et al
as 1:2021cv00076
Defendant:
Corey Burks, L. Paul Bailey, Chuck Heit and others
Plaintiff:
William Joseph Bailey #730664
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Clay v. Bailey et al
as 1:2020cv01200
Defendant:
Paul L. Bailey, E. Kuhl, Celena Herbert and others
Plaintiff:
John Clay, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
KUHL v. SHELTON et al
as 1:2019cv00956
Defendant:
STEVE HIATT, DAVID ERDMANN, J. R. PALMER and others
Plaintiff:
THEODORE KUHL
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.
