Cases 21 - 30 of 253
Gonzalez v. Guildner et al
as 1:2022cv01330
Plaintiff:
Andrew R. Gonzalez
Defendant:
Bradley R. F. Guildner and City of York, Pennsylvania
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv00741
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2003 Job Discrimination
DIEUJUSTE et al v. BOROUGH OF ROSELLE et al
as 2:2022cv02607
Plaintiff:
TYRON DIEUJUSTE, MAYA HOLMES and JALIL SPANN
Defendant:
BOROUGH OF ROSELLE, ROSELLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, OFFICER CARLOS GONZALEZ and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1343 Violation of Civil Rights
Toussaint v. Gonzalez
as 2:2022cv02171
Plaintiff:
FRITZ GERALD TOUSSAINT
Defendant:
Esteban Gonzalez
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
GONZALEZ v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al
as 2:2022cv00031
Plaintiff:
JOSE GONZALEZ
Defendant:
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, TERRELL FELTS, JEAN CASTOR and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
VASQUEZ v. CITY OF PATERSON et al
as 2:2021cv19311
Plaintiff:
GABRIELA VASQUEZ
Defendant:
CITY OF PATERSON, CITY OF PATERSON POLICE DEPARTMENT, DETECTIVE R. DUFFY and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1343
VASQUEZ v. CITY OF PATERSON et al
as 2:2021cv19307
Plaintiff:
GABRIELA VASQUEZ
Defendant:
CITY OF PATERSON, CITY OF PATERSON POLICE DEPARTMENT, DETECTIVE FORMENTIN and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1343
GONZALEZ v. PEOSH et al
as 3:2021cv18966
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM E. GONZALEZ
Defendant:
PEOSH, THOMAS LIPSKI and THOMAS WILSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
WRIGHT v. COUNTY OF CAMDEN et al
as 1:2021cv13158
Defendant:
COUNTY OF CAMDEN, JOHN DOES 26-50 (fictitious names), OFFICER LUIS GONZALEZ and others
Plaintiff:
JAMES WRIGHT
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2021cv12332
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
