Cases 11 - 20 of 124
Jones v. Lumpkin
as 2:2022cv00261
Petitioner:
Broderick Darnell Jones
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Kevino GrahamIn re: Kevino Graham
as 22-3178
Petitioner:
In re: KEVINO GRAHAM
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and C. DARNELL JONES, II
Jones v. Code Enforcement Business et al
as 3:2022cv01907
Plaintiff:
Michael Darnell Jones
Defendant:
Code Enforcement Business, Stacey Graves, The MacFarlane Firm PC and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jones v. Gorman et al
as 3:2022cv01875
Plaintiff:
Michael Darnell Jones
Defendant:
Esther Gorman, Gene Gorman, Code Enforcement Cedar Hill and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
JONES v. HOBECK et al
as 2:2022cv01447
Plaintiff:
CHARLES DARNELL JONES
Defendant:
JERRY HOBECK, ESQUIRE JUDITH POTOKA PETRUSH and FRANK J PALLONE JR
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Kevino GrahamIn re: Kevino Graham
as 22-2715
Petitioner:
In re: KEVINO GRAHAM
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and C. DARNELL JONES, II
GRAHAM v. JONES
as 2:2022cv02868
Plaintiff:
KEVINO GRAHAM
Defendant:
DISTRICT COURT JUDGE DARNELL JONES
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jones v. H&R Block, Inc. et al
as 1:2022cv00072
Plaintiff:
Darnell Jones
Defendant:
H&R Block, Inc., Bofi Federal Bank, Emerald Financial Services, LLC. and others
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
n v. In Re: Kevino Graham, et al
as 22-1441
Petitioner:
In re: KEVINO GRAHAM
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and C. DARNELL JONES, II
Gerald Bush v. Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority, et alIn re: Gerald Bush v. Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority, et al
as 22-1383
Petitioner:
In re: GERALD BUSH
Respondent:
PHILADELPHIA REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, CHRISTI M. JACKSON, ROBERT LABRUM and others
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.
