Cases 1 - 9 of 9
GILMORE v. PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PAROLE AND PROBATION
as 3:2023cv00167
Plaintiff:
JUSTIN DUPREE GILMORE
Defendant:
PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PAROLE AND PROBATION, DR. LAUREL R. HARRY, SUPERINTENDENT SCOTT KLINEFELTER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
McCollum v. Pries et al
as 1:2022cv01710
Plaintiff:
Johnnie McCollum
Defendant:
Michael H.W. Pries, George P. Hartwick, Chad Saylor and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
DAILEY v. BAZYLAK et al
as 2:2019cv01653
Respondent:
OFFICER VINCE MARKEL, ATTORNEY GENERAL JOSH SHAPIRO, MAYOR RICHARD BECK and others
Petitioner:
CHARLES DAILEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
FORD v. MCFADDEN et al
as 2:2018cv04761
Defendant:
LPN MARKELLE POWELL, PRIME CARE MEDICAL, INC., WARDEN D. EDWARD MCFADDEN and others
Plaintiff:
BRENTON A. FORD
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
CARTER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 2:2015cv02673
Plaintiff:
JOHNNIE MARKEL CARTER
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Curry v. Sauers
as 1:2013cv00977
Petitioner:
Markel Curry
Respondent:
Delbert Sauers
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Markel v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole et al
as 1:2012cv01691
Petitioner:
Michael Scott Markel
Respondent:
Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole and PA State Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Markel v. Director of Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole et al
as 1:2012cv01027
Plaintiff:
Michael Scott Markel
Defendant:
Director of Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole and Kimberly A. Barkley
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Gilyard v. Dauphin Co. Work Release Center et al
as 1:2010cv01657
Defendant:
Dauphin Co. Work Release Center, Mathew Miller, Miles Miller and others
Plaintiff:
Talmadge Gilyard
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.
