Cases 1 - 10 of 49
Nigel Parms v. Allegheny County Facility, et al
as 26-2341
Plaintiff:
NIGEL DWAYNE PARMS
Defendant:
ALLEGHENY COUNTY FACILITY, ZOLLER, DAVID, Inmate Account Property and others
FLYHOPCO, LLC v. M/Y PURE INSANITY et al
as 0:2026cv60182
Plaintiff:
FLYHOPCO, LLC doing business as Bradford Marine
Defendant:
M/Y PURE INSANITY and MY P.I. 1, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1333 Admiralty - Services Rendered
United States of America v. Snowten
as 25-8148
Defendant:
HAROLD WESLEY SNOWTEN, IV and Insane
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
PARMS v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY FACILITY et al
as 2:2025cv01895
Plaintiff:
NIGEL DWAYNE PARMS
Defendant:
ALLEGHENY COUNTY FACILITY, OFFICER ZOLLER, OFFICER DAVID and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
United States of America v. Williams (Rodriguez)
as 25-2891
Defendant:
MARKELL WILLIAMS, JEREMY WILLIAMS, RANDY JONES and others
Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2025cv06134
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
United States of America v. Williams
as 25-1862
Defendant:
JEREMY WILLIAMS, RANDY JONES, PAUL AYALA and others
Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Peter De Guzman v. LeCheek Nutrition, Inc.
as 5:2025cv04821
Plaintiff:
Markus Peter De Guzman
Defendant:
LeCheek Nutrition, Inc. doing business as Insane Labz
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
Jesus Renteria v. Lecheek Nutrition, Inc.
as 2:2025cv03132
Plaintiff:
Jesus Renteria
Defendant:
Lecheek Nutrition, Inc. doing business as Insane Labz
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
Miller v. Neal
as 3:2025cv00307
Plaintiff:
Justin Ray Miller and Insane Gangster Disciples
Defendant:
Julia Neal
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
