Cases 1 - 10 of 15
Mustafa Ali v. Joseph Dupont, et al
as 22-3460
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MUSTAFA ALI
Defendant / Appellee:
JOSEPH H. DUPONT, Chief Hearing Examiner, PA Dept. of Corrections and DR. HASPER, Psychiatrist, SCI Forest
Mustafa Ali v. Joseph H. DuPont, et al
as 19-2750
Defendant / Appellee:
DAWN DUCOTE, Human Resources, Correct Care Solutions, RICHARD ELLERS, VP Correct Care Solutions in PA, DR. HASPER, Psychiatrist, SCI Forest and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MUSTAFA ALI
Shavez HoldenIn re: Shavez Holden
as 19-2687
Not Yet Classified:
SGT. KOPCHICK, C.O. 2, S.C.I. Forest, In re: SHAWVEZ NELSON A/K/A SHAVEZ HOLDEN, ZACHARY J. MOSLAK, Chief Hearing Examiner and others
Mayo v. Wetzel et al
as 3:2019cv00965
Defendant:
Dorine Varner, Carole Mattis, Robeciewski and others
Plaintiff:
Alfred Alonzo Mayo
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Wayne Prater v. Pennsylvania Department of Cor
as 19-1732
Defendant / Appellee:
ELIZABETH JURY, Nurse at SCI Houtzdale, RICHARD, MAINES and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
WAYNE PRATER
PRATER v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
as 3:2019cv00019
Defendant:
PEGGY BARNS, DAVID CLOSE, REBECCA REIFER and others
Plaintiff:
WAYNE PRATER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
HINTON v. JOHN DOE 1 et al
as 2:2019cv00324
Defendant:
CYNTHIA LINK, CO. PAWLICKI, TAMMY FERGUSON and others
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL HINTON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Burgos v. Furguson et al
as 3:2018cv01175
Plaintiff:
David Burgos
Defendant:
Tammy Furguson, Joseph H. Dupont, Szelewski and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ALI v. DUPONT et al
as 2:2018cv00665
Plaintiff:
MUSTAFA ALI
Defendant:
JOSEPH H. DUPONT, MICHAEL OVERMYER, DERRICK OBERLANDER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Keith Davis v. Anthony Eberling, et al
as 18-2033
Plaintiff - Appellant:
KEITH DAVIS
Defendant - Appellee:
ANTHONY E. EBERLING, LT. HOUSE, J. THOMAS and others
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.
