Cases 1 - 6 of 6
Shariff Butler, et al v. John Wetzel, et al
as 23-1761
Plaintiff / Appellant:
SHARIFF BUTLER and JEREMEY MELVIN
Defendant / Appellee:
JOHN E. WETZEL, Secretary of the Department of Corrections, SHIRLEY MOORE SMEAL, Executive Deputy of the Department of Corrections, MELISSA ROBERTS, Former DOC Policy Coordinator and others
Shariff Butler, et al v. John Wetzel, et al
as 22-2576
Plaintiff / Appellant:
SHARIFF BUTLER and JEREMEY MELVIN
Defendant / Appellee:
JOHN E. WETZEL, Secretary of the Department of Corrections, SHIRLEY MOORE SMEAL, Executive Deputy of the Department of Corrections, MELISSA ROBERTS, Former DOC Policy Coordinator and others
Defendant:
TABB BICKELL, Correctional Officer at SCI-Huntingdon, BYRON BRUMBAUGH, Correctional Officer at SCI-Huntingdon, ANTHONY E. EBERLING, Correctional Officer at SCI-Huntingdon and others
Shariff Butler, et al v. John Wetzel, et al
as 22-1963
Plaintiff / Appellant:
SHARIFF BUTLER and JEREMEY MELVIN
Defendant:
JOHN E. WETZEL, Secretary of the Department of Corections, SHIRLEY MOORE SMEAL, Executive Deputy of the Department of Corrections, MELISSA ROBERTS, Former DOC Policy Coordinator and others
Defendant / Appellee:
KEVIN KAUFFMAN
Shariff Butler, et al v. John Wetzel, et al
as 22-8029
Petitioner:
SHARIFF BUTLER and JEREMEY MELVIN
Respondent:
JOHN E. WETZEL, Secretary of the Department of Corections, SHIRLEY MOORE SMEAL, Executive Deputy of the Department of Corrections, MELISSA ROBERTS, Former DOC Policy Coordinator and others
Kingston v. Kauffman et al
as 1:2019cv01099
Petitioner:
Roalston Stevenson Kingston
Respondent:
Facility Manager of SCI-Huntingdon and Kevin Kauffman
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Smith v. Kauffman et al
as 1:2019cv01068
Petitioner:
Douglas Preston Smith
Respondent:
Facility Manager of SCI-Huntingdon and Kevin Kauffman
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.
