Cases 1 - 9 of 9
ADAMS v. BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY et al
as 2:2023cv02142
Plaintiff:
ROBERT L. ADAMS, JR.
Defendant:
BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, SUPERINTENDENT METELLUS, KELLY REED and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
CANNAFAX v. BUCKS COUNTY OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA et al
as 2:2023cv01274
Plaintiff:
JEREMY TYLER CANNAFAX and JEREMY KYLE CANNAFAX
Defendant:
BUCKS COUNTY OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, WARDEN MATELLUS, DEPUTY WARDEN KELLY REED and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
WILSON SR. v. BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY et al
as 2:2023cv00912
Plaintiff:
JIMMY LEE WILSON, SR.
Defendant:
BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, WARDEN MATELIS, MS. REED and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
WILSON SR. v. MATELIS et al
as 2:2023cv00909
Plaintiff:
JIMMY LEE WILSON, SR.
Defendant:
BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, WARDEN MATELIS, MS. REED and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
SANCHEZ v. MR. PIROLLI et al
as 2:2021cv04797
Plaintiff:
ALFONZO SANCHEZ
Defendant:
MR. PIROLLI, MR. KRATZ, MR. PAUL LAGANA and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Nottingham v. Harry et al
as 3:2020cv01318
Respondent:
Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office and Laurel Harry
Petitioner:
James E. Nottingham
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Nottingham et al v. Harry et al
as 3:2019cv01949
Respondent:
Jeanna Longo, Kenneth Osokow, Anthony Ciuca and others
Petitioner:
James E. Nottingham and William Haight
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Nottingham v. Harry et al
as 4:2019cv00595
Defendant:
Matthew Welickovitch, Jason Cooley, Brandon Renner and others
Plaintiff:
James E. Nottingham
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Nottingham v. Gray et al
as 4:2018cv02002
Respondent:
PA Attorney General, Nancy Butts and Richard A. Gray
Petitioner:
James E. Nottingham
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
