Cases 51 - 60 of 62
In re: Clinton Barlow
as 13-1320
Petitioner:
In re: CLINTON C. BARLOW
Nominal Respondent:
JEROME B. SIMANDLE and FREDA L. WOLFSON
In re: Michael Garcia, et al
as 12-3250
Petitioner - Petitioner:
In re: MICHAEL A. GARCIA
Respondent - Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and DONNA ZICKEFOOSE, Warden
Not Party - Nominal Respondent:
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
In re: Michael Garcia
as 12-3049
Plaintiff - Petitioner:
In re: MICHAEL A. GARCIA
Defendant - Respondent:
DONNA ZICKEFOOSE
Not Party - Nominal Respondent:
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
PRALL v. SIMANDLE
as 3:2012cv01886
Plaintiff:
TORMU E. PRALL
Defendant:
JEROME B. SIMANDLE, FREDA L. WOLFSON, CAMDEN DISTRICT COURT and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
In re: Tormu Prall
as 11-4011
Plaintiff - Petitioner:
In re: TORMU E. PRALL
Defendant - Respondent:
JOSEPH L. BOCCHINI, JR., ARTHUR R. SYPEK, JR., CHARLES ELLIS and others
Not Party - Nominal Respondent:
JEROME B SIMANDLE
MURAKUSH CALIPHATE OF AMEXEM INC. v. SIMANDLE
as 3:2011cv01316
Plaintiff:
MURAKUSH CALIPHATE OF AMEXEM INC.
Defendant:
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
In re: Dalma Edwards, et al
as 10-3768
Plaintiff - Petitioner:
In re: DALMA S. EDWARDS
Defendant - Respondent:
FED BUREAU OF PRISONS and DONNA ZICKEFOOSE, et al., Warden
Nominal Respondent:
JEROME B SIMANDLE
In re: Hector Huertas, et al
as 10-1084
Plaintiff - Petitioner:
In re: HECTOR L. HUERTAS
Defendant - Respondent:
TRANSUNION LLC, EXPERIAN, RONALD BRODY, a Physiatrist and others
Nominal Respondent:
JEROME B SIMANDLE
Arthur Hairston, Sr. v. Gronolsky, et al
as 09-2719
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ARTHUR L. HAIRSTON, SR.
Defendant - Appellee:
GRONOLSKY, JEROME B SIMANDLE and RANDOLF, B.O.P. EMPLOYEE
HAIRSTON v. GRONOLSKY et al
as 3:2008cv05648
Petitioner:
ARTHUR L. HAIRSTON, SR.
Respondent:
GRONOLSKY, JEROME B. SIMANDLE and RANDOLF
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
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.
