Cases 31 - 40 of 70
Blackman v. Brachmoute et al
as 2:2017cv01218
Plaintiff:
Tony Blackman
Defendant:
P Brachmoute, K. Oneal, C Archiveletta and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Clark v. Cypress Gardening Services, LLC et al
as 2:2017cv04690
Plaintiff:
Elvin Suazo Clark
Defendant:
Cypress Gardening Services, LLC and Scott D. Ingram
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Thomas v. Gilmore et al
as 1:2017cv00981
Plaintiff:
Titus Thomas
Defendant:
G. Gilmore, D. Ingram, Sirus and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
In re: Kai Ingram
as 17-1058
Plaintiff - Petitioner:
In re: KAI D. INGRAM
Defendant - Respondent:
DEBRA SAUERS, JACQUELINE M. CARROLL, ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA and others
Not Party - Nominal Respondent:
JOHN E JONES, III
Kai Ingram v. Superintendent Forest SCI, et al
as 17-1012
Plaintiff - Appellant:
KAI D. INGRAM
Defendant - Appellee:
SUPERINTENDENT FOREST SCI, ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA and DISTRICT ATTORNEY LUZERNE COUNTY
In re: Kai Ingram
as 16-4188
Plaintiff - Petitioner:
In re: KAI D. INGRAM
Defendant - Respondent:
DEBRA SAUERS, ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA and STEFANIE J. SALAVANTIS
Nominal Respondent:
JOHN E JONES, III
INGRAM v. COLVIN
as 5:2016cv00501
Defendant:
CAROLYN COLVIN
Plaintiff:
EUGENE D INGRAM
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 206
Ingram v. SCI Dallas Correctional Officers et al
as 1:2016cv02302
Plaintiff:
Kai D. Ingram
Defendant:
SCI Dallas Correctional Officers, Burress, Krakowski and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ingram v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 2:2016cv00398
Plaintiff:
Phillip D Ingram
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security
Miscellaneous_party:
SSA (Court Use Only)
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
Ingram v. U Hope CDC, Inc. et al
as 1:2016cv02670
Plaintiff:
Christopher D. Ingram
Defendant:
U Hope CDC, Inc.
Garnishee:
U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446
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.
