Cases 1 - 10 of 15
Hagan v. Harry et al
as 1:2022cv00868
Plaintiff:
Damont Hagan
Defendant:
Laurel Harry, U/K Gourley, U/K Stein and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Damont Hagan v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, et al
as 22-1324
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DAMONT HAGAN
Defendant / Appellee:
PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA, SECRETARY PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and others
Debtor / Appellee:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA
Hagan v. Pennsylvania Board of Parole and Probation et al
as 1:2020cv02335
Respondent:
John Wetzel, Laurel Harry, Attorney General Of The State Of Pennsylvania and others
Petitioner:
Damont Hagan
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Hagan v. Wenerowicz et al
as 1:2020cv01897
Defendant:
Bernadette Mason, Banta, Michael Wenerowicz and others
Plaintiff:
Damont Hagan
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hagan v. Mason et al
as 1:2019cv02120
Defendant:
Bernadette Mason, Banta, Stetler and others
Plaintiff:
Damont Hagan
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hagan v. Wetzel et al
as 1:2019cv00454
Defendant:
Moore, John Wetzel, Jamey Luther and others
Plaintiff:
Damont Hagan
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hagan et al v. Wetzel et al
as 1:2018cv00270
Plaintiff:
Damont Hagan, Raphael Spearman and Thomas Davis
Defendant:
John Wetzel, Shirley Smeal, Tabb Bickell and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hagan v. Tritt et al
as 1:2016cv01738
Plaintiff:
Damont Hagan
Defendant:
Brenda Tritt, Miller, Kovalchik and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hagan v. Harris et al
as 1:2013cv02731
Plaintiff:
Damont Hagan
Defendant:
Brian Harris, Charles Mitchell, Pope and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
HAGAN v. FISHER et al
as 2:2013cv01566
Petitioner:
DAMONT HAGAN
Respondent:
JON FISHER and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
