Cases 1 - 10 of 53
Parrish v. Attorney General of Pennsylvania et al
as 1:2024cv00236
Plaintiff:
Donte Darrell Parrish
Defendant:
Attorney General of Pennsylvania, County of York, Warden Adam Ogle and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Nesby v. Lumpkin
as 1:2023cv01101
Petitioner:
Rodgy Lee Nesby
Defendant:
Bobby Lumpkin
Respondent:
Warden Adam Gonzalez
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Lane v. Martin et al
as 6:2023cv00041
Plaintiff:
Rodney Mangon Lane, Sr.
Defendant:
Unit Mg Ms. Martin, Medical Services, Warden Adams and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Adair v. Warden Adams et al
as 1:2023cv03502
Plaintiff:
Patrick Adair
Defendant:
Warden Adams, Sgt. Wehr, Sgt. Wilkins and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
NESTOR v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY et al
as 2:2023cv00807
Defendant:
ALLEGHENY HEALTH NETWORK, INC., ALLEGHENY COUNTY, THE ALLEGHENY COUNTY JAIL OVERSIGHT BOARD and others
Plaintiff:
BRIAN LEE NESTOR
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Wilbert Edmond v. Adam Douglas
as 23-1383
Petitioner / Appellant:
WILBERT EDMOND
Respondent / Appellee:
WARDEN ADAM DOUGLAS
Wilbert Edmond v. Adam Douglas
as 23-1360
Petitioner / Appellant:
WILBERT EDMOND
Respondent / Appellee:
WARDEN ADAM DOUGLAS
Martin v. Adams et al
as 6:2023cv00024
Plaintiff:
Nolan Craig Martin
Defendant:
Warden Adams, Warden Chambers and Mr. Tool
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Bailey v. Adams et al
as 1:2023cv01248
Plaintiff:
Victor V. Bailey
Defendant:
Warden Adams, Will County Adult Detention Facility, Ameasha Randles and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
GLENN v. ADAMS
as 1:2023cv00015
Petitioner:
NORMAN O GLENN
Respondent:
WARDEN ADAMS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
