Cases 1 - 10 of 22
Koontz v. Payne et al
as 2:2024cv00054
Plaintiff:
Morris B Koontz
Defendant:
Dexter Payne, William Straughn, Moses Jackson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Richardson v. Peek et al
as 5:2024cv00098
Plaintiff:
Mark Richardson
Defendant:
Jim Peek, Timothy Vann and Cheyenne Underwood
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Richardson v. Underwood
as 23-595
Petitioner / Appellant:
Mark Richardson
Respondent / Appellee:
Michael Capra, Superintendent, Sing Sing Correctional Facility
Parson v. Marion County Sheriff Department et al
as 4:2020cv01222
Defendant:
John Q Atkinson, Jr, Tracey Causey, Marion County Sheriff Department and others
Plaintiff:
Arnold Parson, Jr
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
RICHARDSON v. ESTOCK et al
as 2:2018cv01704
Respondent:
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA, SUPT. LEE ESTOCK and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Petitioner:
MARK RICHARDSON
Defendant:
PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Richardson v. Underwood et al
as 1:2018cv07694
Petitioner:
Mark Richardson
Respondent:
Attorney General Barbara D. Underwood and Michael Capra, Superintendent, Sing Sing Correctional Facility
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 hc
Carter v. Munoz et al
as 1:2018cv00994
Defendant:
Mark Richardson, Paola Munoz and Steven Wesley
Plaintiff:
Jermaine Layton Carter
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Wiggins v. Wallace et al
as 1:2018cv01448
Plaintiff:
Derell Dewitt Wiggins
Defendant:
Brian Wallace, Mark Richardson, Richard Neil and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Teter v. Richardson et al
as 2:2018cv04042
Plaintiff:
Randy G Teter, II
Defendant:
Mark Richardson and Gale Wood
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
RICHARDSON v. USA
as 1:2016cv01292
Petitioner:
JOHN MARK RICHARDSON
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
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.
