Cases 1 - 10 of 75
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2026cv00125
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2024cv00305
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv00844
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv00836
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Talley v. Harry et al
as 1:2023cv01033
Plaintiff:
Quintez Talley
Defendant:
Dr. Laurel Harry, MHM, Inc., Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
MEINTEL v. 3M COMPANY
as 3:2023cv01588
Plaintiff:
LOUIS MEINTEL
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 8:2022cv02210
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
DeShawn Drumgo, Sr. v. Reese, et al
as 22-2491
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DESHAWN D. DRUMGO, SR. and DESHAWN DRUMGO
Defendant / Appellee:
CAPTAIN REESE, Security - SCI-Frackville
Defendant:
LT. NEWBERRY, Security - SCI-Frackville, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT MEINTEL, MCCOY, SCI-Frackville and others
Moorer v. Meintel
as 1:2022cv01212
Petitioner:
Marcus Brandon Moorer
Respondent:
Warden Mike Meintel
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Berry v. Meintel
as 2:2022cv02465
Petitioner:
Jonathan E Berry
Defendant:
Warden Mike Meintel
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
