Cases 1 - 10 of 11
Nicholas Hebrard v. Robert Tanner, Warden, et al
as 16-30913
Plaintiff - Appellant:
NICHOLAS C. HEBRARD
Defendant - Appellee:
ROBERT C. TANNER, WARDEN, B. B. RAYBURN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, TIM CRAWFORD, Major, JONATHAN TYNES, Disciplinary Officer and others
Hebrard v. McCain et al
as 2:2016cv10913
Plaintiff:
Nicholas C. Hebrard
Defendant:
Sandy McCain, Tim Crawford, Jonathan Tynes and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Nathan Riley v. Abubakar Muhammad, et al
as 16-2366
Plaintiff - Appellant:
NATHAN RILEY
Defendant - Appellee:
ABUBAKAR MUHAMMAD, ALEDA MENCHYK, FOOD SERVICE MANAGER WALLACE DITTSWORTH and others
Reid v. Rogers et al
as 1:2016cv01018
Plaintiff:
Marcus Kyle Reid
Defendant:
Jeff Rogers, Tenile Gilrieth, Tommy Reed and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
RILEY et al v. MUHAMMAD et al
as 2:2014cv00547
Plaintiff:
NATHAN RILEY
Defendant:
ABUBAKAR MUHAMMAD, ALEDA MENCHYK, WALLACE DITTSWORTH and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Riley et al v. Muhammad et al
as 3:2013cv02766
Plaintiff:
Nathan Riley and Alejambra Tilley
Defendant:
Abubakar Muhammad, Aleda Menchyk, Wallace Dittsworth and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Burris v. Singleton et al
as 1:2013cv01007
Plaintiff:
Nicholas P. Burris
Defendant:
Ham Singleton, Mark Klappenbach and Jeff Rogers
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
RAY v. ROGERS et al
as 2:2012cv00985
Plaintiff:
FREDERICK T. RAY
Defendant:
JEFF ROGERS, DAVID MITCHELL, COI HARKLEROAD and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Nathan Riley v. Sec PA Dept Corr, et al
as 11-2127
Plaintiff - Appellant:
NATHAN RILEY
Defendant - Appellee:
SEC PA DEPT CORR, SUSAN COWAN, WORKMAN, CO 4 and others
RILEY v. DECARLO et al
as 2:2011cv00537
Plaintiff:
NATHAN RILEY
Defendant:
MICHAEL DECARLO , WALLACE DITTSWORTH , JEFF ROGERS 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.
