Cases 51 - 60 of 68
Morales v. United States of America et al
as 1:2014cv00485
Dental Assistant:
D. Louis
Defendant:
MDC Legal Department, MDC Medical Department, Unit Manager Hector Maldonado and others
Plaintiff:
Lixander Morales
Dentist:
Dr. Patel
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jordan v. Federal Bureau of Prison
as 13-2069
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Joseph Jordan
Defendant - Appellee:
Federal Bureau of Prisons, Metropolitan Detention Center, Federal Defenders of New York, Inc. and others
Johnson v. Fairton Bureau Of Prisons-Fairton et al
as 1:2013cv01311
Plaintiff:
James E. Johnson
Defendant:
Fairton Bureau Of Prisons-Fairton, Warden Shartle, Case Manager Patel and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Delacruz v. Detective Dubroff et al
as 1:2012cv03804
Plaintiff:
Jordan Delacruz
Defendant:
Detective Dubroff, Detective Kuhn and Detective Patel
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Patel v. Martuscello
as 11-2171
Petitioner - Appellant:
Vinod Patel
Respondent - Appellee:
Superintendent D. Martuscello
Patel v. Martuscello
as 11-867
Petitioner - Appellant:
Vinod Patel
Respondent - Appellee:
D. Martuscello, Superintendent of Coxsackie Correctional Facility
Patel v. Martuscello
as 1:2010cv05695
Respondent:
Superintendent D. Martuscello
Petitioner:
Vinod Patel
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Patel v. Martuscello
as 1:2010cv04804
Respondent:
D. Martuscello
Petitioner:
Vinod Patel
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Davis v. Connick et al
as 3:2009cv01226
Plaintiff:
Corey Davis
Defendant:
Devereaux Connick and Krishna Patel
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Davis v. Connick et al
as 1:2009cv02817
Plaintiff:
Corey Davis
Defendant:
Devereaux Connick and Krishna Patel
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.
