Cases 1 - 10 of 10
ROSARIO v. WETZEL et al
as 2:2023cv00966
Plaintiff:
DAVID ROSARIO
Defendant:
FORMER SECRETARY JOHN WETZEL, SECRETARY, DR. LAUREL HARRY, DEPUTY SECRETARY TAMMY FERGUSON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
MOODY v. HARRY et al
as 3:2023cv00875
Plaintiff:
Brandon Moody
Defendant:
Laurel Harry, George Little, Tabb Bickle and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
MOODY v. HARRY et al
as 2:2023cv00770
Plaintiff:
BRANDON MOODY
Defendant:
LAUREL HARRY, GEORGE LITTLE, TABB BICKLE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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
KENYON v. BICKLE et al
as 3:2022cv00091
Plaintiff:
TODD KENYON
Defendant:
TABB BICKLE, JOHN WETZEL and COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Simms v. Wetzel et al
as 3:2020cv01411
Defendant:
S. Pasquale, Dr. Dancha, John DOE and others
Plaintiff:
Shawn M Simms
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Mack v. Bilger et al
as 3:2013cv02192
Plaintiff:
David A. Mack
Defendant:
Robert Bilger, Tabb-Bickle, Mark Garman and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
WILLIAMS v. BICKLE et al
as 2:2011cv07124
Petitioner:
WILLIAM C. WILLIAMS
Respondent:
TABB BICKLE, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
COOK v. BICKLE
as 2:2011cv06068
Petitioner:
BRIAN COOK
Respondent:
TABB BICKLE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Sekou v. Beard et al
as 3:2008cv00381
Plaintiff:
Mwangi Sekou
Defendant:
Jeffrey A. Beard, Ph.D., Department of Corrections, John Kerestes and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 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.
