Cases 1 - 10 of 12
STOKES v. RISKUS et al
as 1:2014cv00060
Plaintiff:
MAURICE STOKES
Defendant:
RISKUS, SETNEK, JOHN DOE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
COFFEE v. BURKHART et al
as 1:2012cv00163
Plaintiff:
JEROME COFFEE
Defendant:
RAYMOND BURKHART, ANDRE REPKO, THOMAS RISKUS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
TINDELL v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
as 1:2012cv00121
Plaintiff:
ARCHIE TINDELL
Defendant:
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, JOHN E. WETZEL, DAVID PICKETT and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
TINDELL v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
as 1:2011cv00173
Plaintiff:
ARCHIE TINDELL
Defendant:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, JOHN E. WENTEL, DEBRA SAUERS and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 cr Notice of Removal - Civil Rights
HARSH v. BARONE et al
as 1:2010cv00223
Plaintiff:
MARK C. HARSH
Defendant:
MICHAEL BARONE, D. BUNTING, MAXA and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
HOPKINS v. APADACA et al
as 1:2010cv00166
Plaintiff:
KENTLIN HOPKINS
Defendant:
APADACA, JOHN DOE, BURKHART and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
TAYLOR v. BARONE et al
as 1:2010cv00139
Plaintiff:
SAMUEL TAYLOR
Defendant:
MICHAEL C. BARONE, EDWARD J. WOJCIK, KURT L. GRANLUND and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
DUNBAR v. BARONE et al
as 1:2009cv00245
Plaintiff:
MARTY DECARLOS DUNBAR
Defendant:
M. BARONE, E. J. WOJCIK, K. L. GRANLUND and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
DOCKERY v. BEARD et al
as 2:2009cv00732
Plaintiff:
TIMOTHY DOCKERY
Defendant:
JEFFREY A. BEARD, RAYMOND J. SOBINA, BRIAN V. COLEMAN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
SLOAN v. SOBINA et al
as 1:2009cv00100
Plaintiff:
AARON SLOAN
Defendant:
RAYMOND J. SOBINA, CALDWELL, PURVIS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
