Cases 1 - 10 of 77
THOMPSON v. WETZEL et al
as 2:2020cv03550
Plaintiff:
BRIAN THOMPSON
Defendant:
KENNETH GOODMAN, TAMMY FERGUSON, JOHN WETZEL and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SNYDER v. THOMPSON et al
as 2:2018cv01061
Defendant:
BRIAN THOMPSON, MICHAEL MAHLMEISTER, KAREN FEATHERS and others
Plaintiff:
RANDY SNYDER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
DAVIS v. THOMPSON et al
as 2:2017cv00861
Petitioner:
THOMAS DAVIS
Respondent:
BRIAN THOMPSON and S.C.I. MERCER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
SPUCK v. CLEARFIELD COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY et al
as 3:2017cv00002
Petitioner:
DANIEL L. SPUCK
Respondent:
CLEARFIELD COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY and BRIAN THOMPSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
HURLEY v. THOMPSON et al
as 2:2016cv01891
Petitioner:
DANIEL RICHARD HURLEY
Respondent:
BRIAN THOMPSON and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Begnoche v. Thompson et al
as 3:2016cv02455
Petitioner:
Paul J. Begnoche, Sr.
Respondent:
Brian Thompson, Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania and PA State Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
DUCK v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA et al
as 2:2016cv01578
Petitioner:
NATHANIEL LAMONT DUCK, JR.
Respondent:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, BRIAN THOMPSON, STEPHEN A. ZAPPALA, JR. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
JONES v. THOMPSON et al
as 2:2016cv01494
Plaintiff:
MARVIN JONES
Defendant:
BRIAN THOMPSON, ANDREA SHIOCK, ANDREWS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SPUCK v. THOMPSON
as 3:2016cv00172
Petitioner:
DANIEL L. SPUCK
Respondent:
BRIAN THOMPSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Brian Baxter v. Pennsylvania Department of Cor, et al
as 16-1838
Plaintiff - Appellant:
BRIAN D. BAXTER
Defendant - Appellee:
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, BRIAN THOMPSON, SCI Superintendent, MICHAEL MALMISTER, SCI Mercer, Deputy Superintendent and others
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.
