Cases 1 - 8 of 8
Karl Manuel v. Mark Capozza, et al
as 24-1396
Plaintiff:
KARL B. MANUEL
Defendant:
SUPERINTENDENT MARK CAPOZZA, C/O SERGEANT WILES, C/O. LT. DAILEY and others
KENDRICK v. LITTLE et al
as 2:2023cv00187
Plaintiff:
PAUL KENDRICK
Defendant:
GEORGE LITTLE, SUPERINTENDENT ERIC ARMEL, WALKER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
BELL et al v. LITTLE et al
as 2:2022cv01516
Plaintiff:
XAVIAR PAGAN, RONNIE E. JOHNSON, COURTNEY DUNCAN and others
Defendant:
SECRETARY GEORGE M. LITTLE, SECRETARY JOHN E. WETZEL, DEPUTY SECRETARY TREVOR WINGARD and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
MCKAY v. ARMEL et al
as 2:2022cv01091
Petitioner:
OMALI MCKAY
Respondent:
SUPERINTENDENT ERIC ARMEL, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF WESTMORELAND COUNTY and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
BATCHLER v. SUPERINTENDENT ERIC ARMEL et al
as 2:2022cv01295
Petitioner:
Lamar Batchler
Respondent:
SUPERINTENDENT ERIC ARMEL, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
STANLEY v. ARMEL
as 2:2021cv05595
Petitioner:
HAKEEM STANLEY
Respondent:
SUPERINTENDENT ERIC ARMEL, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651
BRYANT v. SUPERINTENDENT, SCI FAYETTE et al
as 2:2021cv03075
Petitioner:
BRYANT A RICHARD and RICHARD A. BRYANT
Respondent:
SUPERINTENDENT ERIC ARMEL, DISTRICT ATTORNEY LAWRENCE KRASNER, ESQ, ATTORNEY GENERAL JOSHUA SHAPIRO and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
MANUEL v. CAPOZZA et al
as 2:2020cv01759
Defendant:
ASST SUPERINTENDENT ERIC ARMEL, C/O SERGENT WILES, C/O LT. DAILEY and others
Plaintiff:
KARL B. MANUEL
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.
