Cases 1 - 10 of 100
UPSHUR v. THE CITY OF PITTSBURGH et al
as 1:2026cv00226
Plaintiff:
JEREMY UPSHUR
Defendant:
THE CITY OF PITTSBURGH, COREY O'CONNOR, ALLEGHENY COUNTY COURTS, JILL E. RANGOS, ALLEGHENY COUNTY - CIVIL DIVISION, NICOLA TAYLOR and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
SIRMONS v. KENDAL et al
as 5:2026cv06773
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER LEE SIRMONS
Defendant:
LINDSY KENDAL, COLLEEN DUGAN and DAVE SUNDAY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Florio v. Porter et al
as 1:2026cv00210
Plaintiff:
Jamari Nathaniel Florio
Defendant:
Gabriel Porter, John Dugan, Timothy Seabaugh and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2026cv13138
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 451 Employment Discrimination
SHAVER v. VINARDI et al
as 2:2026cv00590
Plaintiff:
TREVION SHAVER
Defendant:
K. VINARDI, K. FISCHER, ARNOLD and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Dugan v. Bisignano
as 7:2026cv00338
Plaintiff:
Mark A. Dugan
Defendant:
Frank J. Bisignano
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 402 Social Security Benefits
Arce et al
as 5:2026cv08472
Plaintiff:
Amelia V Arce, Monique Arce, Emelda Yambao Badua and others
Defendant:
Vivakor, Inc., James Ballengee, Matt Nicosia and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
DUGAN v. CO.1 KRMcGOWAN
as 2:2026cv01689
Plaintiff:
SHAQUILLE DUGAN
Defendant:
CO.1 KRMcGOWAN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Ronald Jermaine Jackson v. David W. Dugan
as 26-2626
Petitioner:
RONALD J. JACKSON
Respondent:
DAVID W. DUGAN
Hinton, et al. v. County of Cochise, et al.
as 26-5028
Plaintiff:
MARCUS HINTON, VANESSA HINTON, VERONICA HINTON and others
Defendant:
COUNTY OF COCHISE, COCHISE COUNTY SHERIFF, DONI MAERS 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.
