US District Court for the Southern District of New York Civil Rights Cases
Cases 61 - 70 of 19,150
Sutton v. United States Government
as 1:2024cv02533
Plaintiff:
Kareem Sutton
Defendant:
United States Government
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Tavares v. City Of New York et al
as 1:2024cv02507
Other:
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, The New York City Police Department and Estharlin Lopez
Plaintiff:
KEDWIN TAVARES
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 cv Fed. Question: Other Civil Rights
Thomas v. City of New York et al
as 1:2024cv02534
Plaintiff:
Shawn Randall Thomas
Defendant:
City of New York, Eric Leroy Adams, Keechant Sewell and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Lastra v. Millennium Downtown New York Hotel
as 1:2024cv02603
Plaintiff:
James Lastra
Defendant:
Millennium Downtown New York Hotel
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Kashelkar v. The United States Government
as 1:2024cv02722
Plaintiff:
Ashok Kashelkar
Defendant:
The United States Government
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
New Rochelle CP v. Anthony
as 1:2024cv02593
Plaintiff:
New Rochelle CP
Defendant:
Keith Anthony
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 nr Notice of Removal
Doe v. Praxis Housing Initiatives, Inc. (Praxis) et al
as 1:2024cv02477
Plaintiff:
John Doe
Defendant:
Praxis Housing Initiatives, Inc. (Praxis) and Shauntee Garnett
Zorilla v. Youtube et al
as 1:2024cv02487
Plaintiff:
Henry Zorilla
Defendant:
Youtube and John Doe
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Song v. Hoch
as 1:2024cv02532
Plaintiff:
Eugenia Song
Defendant:
Emily Hoch
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Arcona v. Camden County Druo Court et al
as 1:2024cv02481
Plaintiff:
Daniel Arcona
Defendant:
Camden County Druo Court, New Brunswick Police Dept., N/DOC Staff Male and Female and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
