Cases 1 - 9 of 9
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv21365
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442 Notice of Removal
John McDonald v. District Attorney Dauphin County, et al
as 24-1650
Plaintiff:
JOHN MAURICE MCDONALD
Defendant:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY DAUPHIN COUNTY, WARDEN FRACKVILLE SCI and ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA
McDONALD v. MARSH et al
as 1:2024cv00091
Plaintiff:
JOHN MAURICE McDONALD
Defendant:
ROBERT MARSH, SUPERINTENDENT RANDY IRWIN, MAJOR DEAL and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Robinson v. Stonewood Insurance Company et al
as 1:2023cv02375
Plaintiff:
Rodriguez Robinson
Defendant:
Stonewood Insurance Company, Maurice Lamar McDonald doing business as Maurice McDonald Truckings and Maurice McDonald
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Notice of Removal - Motor Vehicle
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv20322
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
McDonald v. Warden of SCI-Frackville et al
as 3:2021cv00311
Respondent:
Warden of SCI-Frackville and Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office
Petitioner:
John Maurice McDonald
Defendant:
District Attorney Dauphin County District Attorney
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
WRIGHT v. WASTE PRO USA, INC. et al
as 0:2019cv62051
Defendant:
WASTE PRO OF FLORIDA, INC. and WASTE PRO USA, INC.
Plaintiff:
ANTHONY WRIGHT, Randolph Mobley, Shawn Murphy and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 0201
MCDONALD v. GARMAN et al
as 2:2017cv05840
Petitioner:
MAURICE MCDONALD
Respondent:
MARK GARMAN and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF JOSH SHAPIRO
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
MCDONALD v. WETZEL et al
as 2:2013cv06710
Petitioner:
MAURICE MCDONALD
Respondent:
JOHN WETZEL, MARIROSA LAMAS and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF LINDA KELLY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
