Cases 21 - 30 of 55
Kenneth Frye v. Nantkwest, Inc. et al
as 2:2016cv06700
Defendant:
Michael D. Blaszyk, Cambridge Equities LP, Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
Kenneth Frye
GLENN v. THOMAS et al
as 2:2016cv04153
Plaintiff:
JERRY GLENN
Defendant:
JOHN C. THOMAS, ADRIAN HAREWOOD, SHIFT COMMANDER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Michael Allah v. John Thomas, et al
as 16-3103
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MICHAEL MALIK ALLAH
Defendant - Appellee:
JOHN C. THOMAS, SHIRLEY LAWS-SMITH, LOUISA PEREZ and others
GREEN v. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC. et al
as 2:2016cv03630
Plaintiff:
RODNEY GREEN
Defendant:
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC. , CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, LLC , MICHAEL OVERMYER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
WASHINGTON v. WEINER et al
as 2:2016cv02487
Plaintiff:
JEROME JUNIOR WASHINGTON
Defendant:
WEINER, SUPERINTENDENT JOHN C. THOMAS, MS. SHIRLEY LAWSMITH and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
WASHINGTON v. THOMAS et al
as 2:2016cv02187
Plaintiff:
JEROME WASHINGTON
Defendant:
JOHN C. THOMAS, MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS and MENTAL HEALTH PRACTITIONERS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
RIVERA v. THOMAS et al
as 2:2016cv01493
Plaintiff:
VICTOR RIVERA
Defendant:
JOHN C. THOMAS , BOBBY ZANKEL , PETER ABHULIMEN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
ALLAH v. THOMAS et al
as 2:2015cv05593
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL MALIK ALLAH
Defendant:
JOHN C. THOMAS, SHIRLEY LAWS-SMITH, LOUISA PEREZ and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
BROWN v. THOMAS et al
as 2:2015cv02981
Plaintiff:
LEROY BROWN
Defendant:
JOHN C. THOMAS, DAVIS and HUGHES
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
WRIGHT v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION et al
as 2:2015cv02949
Plaintiff:
HOWARD B. WRIGHT
Defendant:
JOHN C. THOMAS, KYLE BOOK and JOHN E. WETZEL
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.
