Cases 1 - 10 of 23
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv03633
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
JONES et al v. COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY et al
as 2:2021cv01094
Plaintiff:
CARL S. JONES, JR., ANTHONY LEE, CHARLES LANTZY and others
Defendant:
COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY and WARDEN ORLANDO L. HARPER
Petitioner:
CODY SMITH
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
Kemberling v. Capozza
as 3:2020cv01760
Petitioner:
Anthony Lee Kemberling
Respondent:
Mark Capozza, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE/COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA and ADA Megan Elizabeth Ryland-Tanner
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Machicote v. Smith et al
as 1:2020cv01315
Defendant:
David J. Close, Dr. Walmer, M.D., Bobby Jo Salamon and others
Plaintiff:
Anthony Lee Machicote
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Lattimore v. Philadelphia Police Department et al
as 3:2020cv01192
Defendant:
ECMC, Lycoming County Courthouse, Visa Corp and others
Plaintiff:
Anthony Lee Lattimore
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Lattimore v. Shoemaker et al
as 1:2020cv00987
Defendant:
Christopher J. Ebner, Brad A. Shoemaker and Ryan C. Barnes
Plaintiff:
Anthony Lee Lattimore
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Lattimore v. Philadelphia Police Agency et al
as 1:2020cv00856
Defendant:
Department of Corrections, Williamsport Police Agency and Philadelphia Police Agency
Plaintiff:
Anthony Lee Lattimore
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Lee v. Giroux et al
as 3:2014cv00772
Petitioner:
Marcale Anthony Lee
Respondent:
Nancy Giroux and PA State Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
MACHICOTE v. GLUNT
as 2:2013cv00859
Petitioner:
ANTHONY LEE MACHICOTE
Respondent:
STEVE GLUNT and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2012cv01718
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
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.
