Cases 1 - 10 of 14
Wesley Massey v. Wetzel, et al
as 21-1234
Plaintiff / Appellant:
WESLEY A. MASSEY
Defendant / Appellee:
RODNEY CHISM, Deputy Superintendent, SCI Pine Grove, BILLIE HEIDE, Deputy Superintendent of SCI Pine Grove, LEE ESTOCK, Superintendent of SCI Pine Grove and others
MCINTOSH v. WETZEL et al
as 2:2020cv01957
Defendant:
LIEUTENANT DETWILER, INMATE ACCOUNTS SUPERVISOR, LIEUTENANT H. VEIHDOFFER and others
Plaintiff:
KEENAN MCINTOSH
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
MASSEY v. WETZEL et al
as 2:2020cv00722
Defendant:
JOHN WETZEL, BILLIE HEIDE, LEE ESTOCK and others
Plaintiff:
WESLEY A. MASSEY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
Quintez Talley v. Timothy Mazzocca, et al
as 19-2309
Defendant:
THOMAS SUCHTA, DUSTIN POPE, DAVID LINK and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
QUINTEZ TALLEY
TALLEY v. MAZZOCCA et al
as 2:2019cv00161
Defendant:
THOMAS SUCHTA, DUSTIN POPE, DAVID LINK and others
Plaintiff:
QUINTEZ TALLEY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
Talley v. Wetzel, et al
as 3:2018cv00992
Plaintiff:
Quintez Talley
Defendant:
Tammy Ferguson, Rodney Chism, David Link and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Talley v. Wetzel et al
as 3:2018cv00868
Plaintiff:
Quintez Talley
Defendant:
John E. Wetzel, Attorney General's Office, Dept. of Corrections and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
TALLEY v. WETZEL, et al
as 2:2018cv00476
Plaintiff:
QUINTEZ TALLEY
Defendant:
TAMMY FERGUSON, RODNEY CHISM, DAVID LINK and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hagan et al v. Wetzel et al
as 1:2018cv00270
Plaintiff:
Damont Hagan, Raphael Spearman and Thomas Davis
Defendant:
John Wetzel, Shirley Smeal, Tabb Bickell and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
RUSSELL v. STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA et al
as 3:2017cv02386
Plaintiff:
IAN M. RUSSELL
Defendant:
State of Pennsylvania, SCI-Smithfield, Eric Tice and others
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.
