Cases 1 - 10 of 156
Dwight Hill v. Superintendent Camp Hill SCI, et al
as 24-1636
Plaintiff:
DWIGHT M. HILL
Defendant:
SUPERINTENDENT CAMP HILL SCI, ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA and DISTRICT ATTORNEY ALLEGHENY COUNTY
HILL v. MCNEIL et al
as 4:2024cv00152
Plaintiff:
TROY M HILL
Defendant:
WALTER MCNEIL, Natasha Barkley, Mike Hayden and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Jason Tyrrell, et al v. Richard Robinson, et al
as 24-1266
Plaintiff:
JASON ALAN TYRRELL and ALVIN DWAYNE FRAZIER
Defendant:
RICHARD LEE ROBINSON, WILLIAM CHARLES VALKEMA, CRESTON JEROME HICKS and others
Steven Hill v. Camden County Department of Corrections, et al
as 24-1486
Plaintiff:
STEVEN M. HILL
Defendant:
CAMDEN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and CFG MEDICAL SERVICES
HILL v. FELDER et al
as 1:2024cv00864
Plaintiff:
STEVEN M. HILL
Defendant:
FELICIA FELDER, JOSEPH E. KRAKORA, PUBLIC DEFENDERS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
MOORMAN v. HILL et al
as 1:2024cv00206
Plaintiff:
KIR MOORMAN
Defendant:
M HILL, FUMI and FADOTRIM
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Moorman v. Hill et al
as 3:2024cv00087
Plaintiff:
Kir Moorman
Defendant:
M Hill, Fumi and Fadotrim
Not Yet Classified:
WESTVILLE E-FILE(Court Use Only)
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Frederick Hill v. Kenneth Black
as 23-3929
Petitioner / Appellant:
FREDERICK M. HILL
Respondent / Appellee:
WARDEN KENNETH BLACK
HILL v. CAMDEN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
as 1:2023cv21067
Plaintiff:
STEVEN M. HILL
Defendant:
CAMDEN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and CFG MEDICAL SERVICES
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
(PC) Johnson v. Hill et al
as 2:2023cv01846
Plaintiff:
Jesse Johnson, Jr.
Defendant:
Rick M. Hill, E. Aguilar, J Beasley and others
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.
