Cases 1 - 10 of 313
LEE v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
as 2:2019cv00241
Plaintiff:
ROBERT LEE, JR.
Defendant:
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, TY STANTON, MICHAEL WENEROWICZ and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
DARDEN v. LAMAS et al
as 2:2022cv04054
Plaintiff:
MATTHEW DARDEN
Defendant:
MARIROSA LAMAS, KENNETH M. EASON, MS. SHIRLEY LAWS-SMITH and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
FLOR v. WETZEL et al
as 2:2022cv02765
Petitioner:
ROBERT ANTHONY FLOR
Respondent:
JOHN E. WETZEL, JEFFREY A. MARTIN and MARIROSA LAMAS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
O'Donnell v. Lamas et al
as 2:2022cv00208
Petitioner:
KELLEY O'DONNELL
Respondent:
MARIROSA LAMAS, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF (PENNSYLVANIA)
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
O'Donnell v. Lamas et al
as 4:2021cv01460
Petitioner:
Kelley O'Donnell
Respondent:
Marirosa Lamas, The District Attorney of the County of Philadelphia and The Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
BOYER v. LAMAS et al
as 5:2020cv05772
Defendant:
CRAIG STEADMAN, MARK GLURT and MARIROSA LAMAS
Plaintiff:
BRUCE BOYER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
PARIS v. LAMAS et al
as 2:2020cv03700
Defendant:
MARIROSA LAMAS, SARGENT (JOHN DOE), C O. ORTIZ and others
Plaintiff:
THOMAS J. PARIS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
MACK-TANSMORE v. MR. JONES et al
as 2:2020cv00689
Defendant:
S.P. GREEN, MR. JONES, MS. QUINN and others
Plaintiff:
HASHEAM MACK-TANSMORE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
GILLMORE v. LAMAS et al
as 2:2019cv05571
Plaintiff:
MARSHALL GILLMORE
Defendant:
MARIROSA LAMAS, B. ADAMS, M. QUINN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
PEPE v. LAMAS et al
as 2:2019cv03067
Defendant:
MS. J. WALKER, MS. NOVAK, MS. NEKO BOURNE and others
Plaintiff:
MR. DAVID WILSON PEPE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
