Cases 1 - 10 of 45
TICE v. WILSON et al.
as 1:2024cv00044
Plaintiff:
JAMES ROBERT TICE
Defendant:
HARRY E. WILSON, PA STATE POLICE, MEGAN'S LAW SECTION and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
TICE v. WILSON et al
as 1:2024cv00046
Petitioner:
JAMES ROBERT TICE
Respondent:
HARRY E. WILSON and PA STATE POLICE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
SCOTT et al v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
as 3:2023cv00315
Plaintiff:
EARNEST SCOTT, JR. and CHRISTOPHER JAMES ROBERTS
Defendant:
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, LAUREL R. HARRY, JAMES C. BARNACLE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Scholl v. Oliver et al
as 1:2022cv01426
Petitioner:
James Robert Scholl
Respondent:
Lonnie J. Oliver, Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office and Centre County District Attorney
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jackson v. Kreiser et al
as 1:2022cv01217
Plaintiff:
James Robert Jackson
Defendant:
Cynthia Kreiser, Mr. Pirkle and Division of Motor Vehicle (DMV)
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
DAVID v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
as 2:2018cv00711
Plaintiff:
JAMES ROBERT DAVID
Defendant:
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
GARY v. S.C.I. CHESTER MEDICAL DEPT. et al
as 2:2018cv01323
Plaintiff:
JAMES ROBERT GARY
Defendant:
S.C.I. CHESTER MEDICAL DEPT. and ROBINSON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DAVIS v. MILLER
as 2:2017cv00674
Petitioner:
JAMES ROBERT DAVIS
Respondent:
BRIAN MILLER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
WILKINSON v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 2:2016cv01627
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff:
JAMES ROBERT WILKINSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
NORCINI v. WILKER et al
as 2:2015cv01929
Plaintiff:
DAVID NORCINI
Defendant:
STEVEN J. WILKER , JAMES R. LUUKKONEN and JAMES ROBERT LUUKKONEN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
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.
