Cases 1 - 10 of 26
MURZIKE v. HUGHES et al
as 3:2024cv00222
Plaintiff:
JAMES T MURZIKE
Defendant:
C T HUGHES, K PERKINS, S SPEARS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hughes v. Rivello et al
as 5:2024cv01540
Petitioner:
Patrick T. Hughes
Respondent:
Superintendent JOHN A. RIVELLO, District Attorney of Northampton County and PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hughes v. Rivello et al
as 3:2024cv00631
Petitioner:
Patrick T. Hughes
Respondent:
John A. Rivello, District Attorney of Northampton County and Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hargrove-Thomas v. Hughes
as 5:2019cv00226
Plaintiff:
Andre Jamel Hargrove-Thomas
Defendant:
Zackary T Hughes
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hughes v. Dart et al
as 1:2019cv05145
Defendant:
Sgt. Dellis, Lt. Kledyke, Deputy Berkhart and others
Plaintiff:
Michael T Hughes
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hughes v. Dart, et al
as 1:2019cv04047
Defendant:
Unknown Deputy 1, Deputy Cusack, Unknown Nurse Assistant and others
Plaintiff:
Michael T Hughes
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hughes v. Gavin et al
as 1:2019cv03282
Defendant:
Sgt. Dellis, Sgt. Lappine, Deputy Gaudrama and others
Plaintiff:
Michael T Hughes
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hughes v. Wolfe et al
as 1:2019cv03174
Defendant:
Lt. Brown, Unknown Shift Supervisor, Lt. Williams and others
Plaintiff:
Michael T. Hughes
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hughes v. Reichard et al
as 1:2019cv02457
Defendant:
Deputy Rucks, J Reichard, Sgt Meecham and others
Plaintiff:
Michael T Hughes
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hughes et al v. Cook County et al
as 1:2019cv01793
Defendant:
Supt Yoksoulian, Deput Wray, Cook County and others
Plaintiff:
Ronald Jackson and Michael T. Hughes
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.
