Cases 1 - 10 of 20
TALLEY et al v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA et al
as 2:2022cv02328
Plaintiff:
QUINTEZ TALLEY, PENNSYLVANIANS WITH MENTAL ILLNESS and MINORITIES OF PENNSYLVANIA
Defendant:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Beller v. Prime Care et al
as 1:2022cv00926
Plaintiff:
Michael William Beller
Defendant:
Prime Care and Officer Michael Chica 1802
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Williams v. United States of America et al
as 1:2021cv00577
Defendant:
Helms, Lt. Bodge, Mr. Bradley and others
Plaintiff:
Michael Williams
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Williams v. United States of America
as 1:2021cv00436
Plaintiff:
Michael Williams
Defendant:
United States of America, Miss Bodge, Mr. Helms and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Koch v. Executive Office of U. S. Attorneys
as 4:2016cv01554
Plaintiff:
Michael William Koch
Defendant:
Executive Office of U. S. Attorneys
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Koch v. F.B.O.P.
as 3:2016cv01166
Plaintiff:
Michael William Koch
Defendant:
F.B.O.P.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Koch v. United States of America
as 3:2016cv00226
Petitioner:
Michael William Koch
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
WILLIAMS v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA et al
as 5:2015cv06505
Petitioner:
MICHAEL WILLIAMS
Respondent:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ________________
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Koch v. Bureau of Prisons et al
as 3:2015cv01761
Plaintiff:
Michael William Koch
Defendant:
Bureau of Prisons, Andrew Edilinger and Danielle Mink
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Koch v. Ebbert et al
as 3:2014cv01832
Petitioner:
Michael William Koch
Respondent:
Ebbert and Bureau of Prisons
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
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.
