Cases 51 - 60 of 142
PISKANIN v. WETZEL et al
as 3:2013cv00097
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL JOHN PISKANIN, JR.
Defendant:
JOHN WETZEL, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, KENNETH CAMERON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Piskanin v. Wetzel et al
as 1:2013cv01191
Plaintiff:
Michael J. Piskanin
Defendant:
John Wetzel, Kenneth Cameron and Marirosa Lamas
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Piskanin v. Wetzel et al
as 1:2013cv01051
Plaintiff:
Michael John Piskanin, Jr.
Defendant:
John Wetzel, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Kenneth Cameron and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
TAYLOR v. CAMERON
as 2:2013cv01262
Petitioner:
KEVIN TAYLOR
Respondent:
KENNETH CAMERON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
EILBELL v. CAMERON et al
as 2:2013cv01030
Respondent:
KENNETH CAMERON, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF PHILADELPHIA CO., PA. and ATTORNEY GENERAL COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Petitioner:
JOSEPH EIBELL
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
PISKANIN v. CAMERON
as 3:2013cv00025
Petitioner:
MICHAEL JOHN PISKANIN
Respondent:
KENNETH CAMERON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Horan v. Wetzel et al
as 1:2013cv00140
Plaintiff:
Patrick Horan
Defendant:
John Wetzel, Shirley Moore-Smeal, Robert MacIntyre and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
PISKANIN v. CAMERON
as 2:2013mc00003
Petitioner:
MICHAEL JOHN PISKANIN, JR.
Respondent:
KENNETH CAMERON
Cause Of Action: Motion for Order
MUHAMMAD v. CAMERON et al
as 3:2012cv00251
Plaintiff:
BUWLUS A. MUHAMMAD
Defendant:
KENNETH CAMERON, J. WIGGINS and MR. SHULTZ
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
PRONIN v. CAMERON et al
as 3:2012cv00240
Petitioner:
DIMITRY PRONIN
Respondent:
KENNETH CAMERON and UNITED STATES MARSHAL
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
