Cases 1 - 10 of 200
Ruff v. McCulloch et al
as 7:2024cv00118
Plaintiff:
Malcolm D Ruff
Defendant:
Robin McCulloch, Lori Hodgkins, Atticus and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Willis v. Ruff et al
as 5:2024ct03102
Plaintiff:
Andrew Reginald Willis
Defendant:
Mark C. Ruff, City Of Fayetteville, Sgt. James Yowell and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
JONES v. CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS et al.
as 1:2024cv00024
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM JONES
Defendant:
CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS, SUPERINTENDENT, MEDICAL DEPARTMENT and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Thomas Dewald v. French, et al
as 23-3268
Plaintiff:
THOMAS ANDREW DEWALD
Defendant:
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER FRENCH, Franklin County Prison, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER REED, Franklin County Prison, LIEUTENANT GARY ARTER and others
(PC) Cooper v. Shaffer et al
as 2:2023cv01737
Plaintiff:
Michael Dean Cooper
Defendant:
Jennifer P. Shaffer, Michael Ruff, Minerva De'La and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Robert Ruff v. Warden Schuylkill FCI
as 23-2448
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ROBERT ANDRE RUFF
Defendant / Appellee:
WARDEN SCHUYLKILL FCI
Davis v. Skillen et al
as 1:2023cv00091
Plaintiff:
Kevin Davis
Defendant:
Shane Skillen, Jason Ruff, Tyrel Flammang and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Stine v. Coyle et al
as 4:2023cv00321
Plaintiff:
Mikeal Glenn Stine
Defendant:
J Coyle, S Karlan, E Alcantar and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Ruff v. Warden T. Wallace
as 9:2023cv02854
Petitioner:
Eddie Ruff and Eddie J Ruff,
Respondent:
Warden T. Wallace
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Alexander Ruff v. Kevin Mazza
as 23-5532
Petitioner / Appellant:
ALEXANDER LEE RUFF
Respondent / Appellee:
KEVIN MAZZA, Kevin Mazza, Warden, Northpoint Training Center and KEVIN MAZZA, Warden, Northpoint Training Center
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.
