Cases 1 - 10 of 25
Gregory Bradley, Jr. v. Herman Sayre, et al
as 23-2854
Plaintiff / Appellant:
GREGORY LEWIS BRADLEY, JR.
Defendant / Appellee:
HERMAN SAYRE and JOHN ARMOUR
Defendant:
WILLIAM SHOUPPE
HART v. HOLLAND et al
as 5:2023cv00075
Plaintiff:
BENJAMIN HARTMAN and BENJAMIN ESTABON CARLITO HART
Defendant:
HEATH HOLLAND, JOSEPH FLOYD, B SHOUPPE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
LOWE v. SHOUPPE et al
as 2:2022cv01191
Plaintiff:
KIJANA LOWE
Defendant:
WILLIAM SHOUPPE, ETHEL WHITE, JUSTIN MAGNUSON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
ARRINGTON v. SHOUPPE et al
as 2:2022cv01173
Petitioner:
RICHARD ARRINGTON
Respondent:
WILLIAM SHOUPPE and ETHEL WHITE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
HOUSER v. SHOUPPE et al
as 2:2022cv00437
Petitioner:
JOHN CHARLES HOUSER
Respondent:
WARDEN WILLIAM SHOUPPE, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF BEAVER COUNTY and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
LAWSON v. SHOUPPE et al
as 2:2022cv00255
Plaintiff:
JAMES JOSEPH LAWSON
Defendant:
WARDEN WILLIAM SHOUPPE and DEPUTY WARDEN ETHEL WHITE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
BRADLEY v. SAYRE et al
as 2:2022cv00065
Plaintiff:
GREGORY LEWIS BRADLEY, JR.
Defendant:
HERMAN AVERY SAYRE, JOHN ARMOUR and WILLIAM SHOUPPE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
BRADLEY v. SHOUPPE
as 2:2021cv01632
Petitioner:
GREGORY LEWIS BRADLEY, JR.
Respondent:
WARDEN WILLIAM SHOUPPE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
HOUSER v. SHOUPPE et al
as 2:2021cv01250
Plaintiff:
JOHN C. HOUSER
Defendant:
WILLIAM SHOUPPE and ETHEL WHITE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
IRVING v. SHOUPPE et al
as 2:2021cv01154
Plaintiff:
MANDEL IRVING
Defendant:
BILL SHOUPPE and ETHEL WHITE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
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.
