Cases 1 - 8 of 8
DAY-HARRIS v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al
as 2:2023cv03219
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL HARRIS and QUINCY DAY-HARRIS
Defendant:
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, PRISON COMMISSIONER BLANCHE CARNEY, WARDEN MICHELE FARRELL and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
BUONCRISTIANO v. CARNEY et al
as 2:2023cv02588
Plaintiff:
NICOLETTE BUONCRISTIANO
Defendant:
COMMISSIONER BLANCHE CARNEY, BRUCE HERDMAN, RN SANDY VARGHESE and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
NUNEZ BRAVO v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al
as 2:2022cv05190
Plaintiff:
LISSETTE NUNEZ BRAVO
Defendant:
THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, CORIZON HEALTH INC., MHM CORRECTIONAL SERVICES LLC doing business as MHM SERVICES INC. AND PARENT COMPANY CENTURION HEALTH and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Howell v. Wetzel et al
as 3:2022cv01255
Plaintiff:
Reverand Wesley Howell
Defendant:
John Wetzel, Kevin Ransom, Paul Bach and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
NEWBERG v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
as 2:2022cv00304
Plaintiff:
DANIEL J. NEWBERG and DANIEL NEWBERG
Defendant:
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, SUPT. JAMES SORBER, STEPHEN WIENER, M.D. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
MASSGUZMAN v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al
as 2:2011cv06981
Plaintiff:
ALBERT MASSGUZMAN
Defendant:
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, INC. and MHM SERVICES, INC.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BANKHEAD v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al
as 2:2011cv05484
Plaintiff:
RODNEY BANKHEAD
Defendant:
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, INC. and MHM SERVICES, INC.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
IN RE: PRISON OVERCROWDING CASES
as 2:2011cv03711
Plaintiff:
PLAINTIFFS
Defendant:
CITY DEFENDANTS , PRISON HEALTH SERVICES and MHM SERVICES, INC.
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.
