Cases 1 - 10 of 12
John McDonald v. District Attorney Dauphin County, et al
as 24-1650
Plaintiff:
JOHN MAURICE MCDONALD
Defendant:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY DAUPHIN COUNTY, WARDEN FRACKVILLE SCI and ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA
Titus v. White Castle et al
as 4:2024cv00304
Plaintiff:
Michael Titus
Defendant:
White Castle, Bank of America, Sparks Hospital and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
McDONALD v. MARSH et al
as 1:2024cv00091
Plaintiff:
JOHN MAURICE McDONALD
Defendant:
ROBERT MARSH, SUPERINTENDENT RANDY IRWIN, MAJOR DEAL and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
McDonald v. Warden of SCI-Frackville et al
as 3:2021cv00311
Respondent:
Warden of SCI-Frackville and Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office
Petitioner:
John Maurice McDonald
Defendant:
District Attorney Dauphin County District Attorney
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
McDonald v. Outlaw
as 3:2016cv00800
Plaintiff:
John Edward McDonald
Defendant:
Timothy Outlaw
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
BEALE v. WETZEL et al
as 1:2013cv00015
Plaintiff:
THOMAS BEALE
Defendant:
JOHN E. WETZEL, DORINA VARNER, JEFFREY WITHERITE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Boatman v. Shemer et al
as 3:2011cv00505
Plaintiff:
Rayvon Boatman
Defendant:
M. Shemer, R. Bryant, L. Thomas and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Brown v. Parrish et al
as 2:2010cv00352
Plaintiff:
Frank C Brown, Jr.
Defendant:
Russ Parrish, Deb Timmerman-Cooper, Stanley Taylor and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
McDonald v. Welch
as 3:2010cv00016
Petitioner:
John L McDonald
Respondent:
Robert Welch
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
MCDONALD v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 2:2007cv01510
Plaintiff:
JOHN L. MCDONALD
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate Sentence
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.
