Cases 41 - 50 of 190
Williams v. Wetzel et al
as 1:2020cv00653
Defendant:
John Wetzel, Michael Oppman, Jane Doe, - and others
Plaintiff:
Rashad Williams
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
BEY v. CAPOZZA et al
as 2:2020cv00442
Defendant:
CORPORAL DELBERT DWITT and FREDERICK G. KAMPERT
Plaintiff:
MELLONZO BEY
Respondent:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF FAYETTE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA and MARK CAPOZZA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
SULLIVAN v. CAPOZZA
as 2:2020cv00384
Petitioner:
CHRISTOPHER SULLIVAN
Respondent:
MARK CAPOZZA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PENNSYLVANIA and DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF JEFFERSON COUNTY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
JOHNS v. CAPOZZA et al
as 2:2020cv01055
Respondent:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF BUCKS and MARK CAPOZZA
Petitioner:
DEREK M. JOHNS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Henry Baynard v. John Wetzel, et al
as 20-1383
Defendant:
CANAY, HENRY, BURKOVICH and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
HENRY BAYNARD
DIAZ v. CAPOZZA et al
as 2:2020cv00873
Respondent:
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA, MARK CAPOZZA and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Petitioner:
BRIAN DIAZ
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
EDWARDS v. CAPOZZA
as 2:2020cv00223
Petitioner:
RAYSHAWN EDWARDS
Respondent:
MARK CAPOZZA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
GREEN v. CAPOZZA
as 2:2020cv00172
Petitioner:
ANTONIO L. GREEN
Respondent:
MARK CAPOZZA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
BRECHT v. CAPOZZA et al
as 1:2020cv00015
Respondent:
ROBERT GREENE, MARK CAPOZZA and ATTORNEY GENERAL JOSH SHAPIRO
Petitioner:
DANIEL LYNN BRECHT
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
MCCARTHY v. CAPOZZA et al
as 2:2020cv00020
Respondent:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and MARK CAPOZZA
Petitioner:
EUGENE J. MCCARTHY, JR.
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.
