Cases 1 - 10 of 11
DAY v. HARRY et al.
as 1:2023cv00222
Plaintiff:
ANTHONY DAY
Defendant:
DR. LAUREL HARRY, PATRICIA THOMPSON, STEVEN SEITCHIK and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
BOWEN v. MONNIE et al
as 1:2022cv00227
Plaintiff:
FREDERICK BOWEN
Defendant:
DEBORAH ANN MONNIE, PATRICK NOSKO, LUKE VOGAN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
DUGAN v. BOROUGH OF NANTY GLO et al
as 3:2019cv00071
Plaintiff:
NICHOLAS DUGAN
Defendant:
BOROUGH OF NANTY GLO, LYNNE STOCK, DIANE HOLBY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SAMPSON v. DAVIDSON INVENTOR SERVICE et al
as 2:2019cv00430
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL EDWARD SAMPSON
Defendant:
DAVIDSON INVENTOR SERVICE, JOHN DELISSIO and FNU DAVIDSON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
WILLIAMS v. CLARK et al
as 1:2018cv00315
Plaintiff:
MITCHELL WILLIAMS
Defendant:
PAUL ENNIS, EARL JONES, ALEXIS SECARA and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
MICKENS v. CLARK et al
as 1:2018cv00005
Plaintiff:
ROBERT MICKENS, SR.
Defendant:
MICHAEL CLARK, JERI SMOCK, CHCA, MICHAEL EDWARDS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
HORSH v. CLARK et al
as 1:2017cv00316
Plaintiff:
CHARLES KEITH HORSH
Defendant:
MICHAEL CLARK, MELINDA ADAMS, JERI SMOCK and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
MILLER et al v. ANDERSON et al
as 1:2017cv00276
Plaintiff:
DARREN MILLER and DEMETRIUS BAILEY
Defendant:
MARYBETH ANDERSON, MAX GOTTESMAN, MICHAEL CLARK and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
WILLIAMS v. CLARK et al
as 1:2017cv00204
Plaintiff:
SHAWN L. WILLIAMS
Defendant:
MICHAEL R. CLARK, NANCY A. GIROUX, MELINDA L. ADAMS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SCRIBE v. WETZEL et al
as 2:2013cv00763
Petitioner:
MICHAEL EDWARD SCRIBE
Respondent:
JOHN E. WETZEL and GERALD ROZUM
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.
