Cases 1 - 10 of 11
ANGLE v. SMITH et al
as 1:2022cv00033
Plaintiff:
BRYAN ANGLE, II
Defendant:
LT. SMITH, LT. FROEHLICH, CO1 GUYTON and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 cr
LEE v. LINK et al
as 2:2017cv02528
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL MO'HAMMED LEE
Defendant:
C. LINK, L. BANTA and NORRIS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BROWN v. CHESTER COUNTY et al
as 2:2017cv01138
Plaintiff:
GARTOR KIKI BROWN
Defendant:
CHESTER COUNTY, CHESTER COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, CHESTER COUNTY SHERIFF JOHN DOE #1 and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
RIVERA v. (CHESTER COUNTY) MUNICIPLE et al
as 2:2015cv05609
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL A RIVERA
Defendant:
(CHESTER COUNTY) MUNICIPLE, MARCONI, MATTHEW JONES and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
LAWRENCE v. MOONEY et al
as 4:2015cv01657
Plaintiff:
LIONEL S. LAWRENCE, SR.
Defendant:
Vincent Mooney, Trisha Kelley, Therese Jellen and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
POTTS v. MCFADDEN et al
as 2:2013cv05164
Plaintiff:
JIMMY POTTS
Defendant:
EDWARD MCFADDEN , RON PHILLIPS , WALTER REED and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
MARKS v. CONIZEN HEALTH CARE, INC. ET AL et al
as 4:2013cv00726
Plaintiff:
Devine Marks
Defendant:
Conizen Health Care, Inc. et al, Teresa Law, L. Hams and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
MARKS v. CONIZEN HEALTH CARE, INC. ET AL et al
as 2:2013cv00093
Plaintiff:
DEVINE MARKS
Defendant:
CONIZEN HEALTH CARE, INC. ET AL, TERESA LAW, L. HAMS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
STROUD v. BOORSTEIN et al
as 5:2010cv03355
Plaintiff:
STEVEN STROUD
Defendant:
RYAN BOORSTEIN, ANDREW OCOTNIK, DANIEL BON HAM and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
LOVERMAN v. GUBERNIK et al
as 2:2010cv02049
Plaintiff:
DARRYL LOVERMAN
Defendant:
HAMS GUBERNIK, TERRANCE MOORE, TOM NOON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
