Cases 31 - 40 of 148
Virgilio Paredes-Matos v. Attorney General United States
as 21-1449
Petitioner:
VIRGILIO PAREDES-MATOS
Respondent:
ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
JEREZ MATOS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 2:2021cv02869
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Petitioner:
ANGEL SANTO JEREZ MATOS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
MATOS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
as 3:2021cv02024
Defendant:
ANDREW SAUL,COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY and COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Plaintiff:
ANTONIO M. MATOS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
MATOS v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, INC et al
as 3:2021cv02004
Defendant:
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC and JOHNSON & JOHNSON, INC
Plaintiff:
TAISHA MATOS
In Re:
JOHNSON & JOHNSON TALCUM POWDER PRODUCTS MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Isaias Matos, et al v. Attorney General United States
as 21-1102
Petitioner:
ISAIAS BELTRE MATOS
Respondent:
ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
KUKU v. OLUSHOLA et al
as 2:2020cv04370
Defendant:
REDEEMED CHRISTIAN CHURCH OF GOD, ADEGBOYEGA OGUNSANYA, EJIKE UZOR and others
Plaintiff:
CAPTAIN ADEKUNLE KUKU
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
SHIELDS v. COSTIERA et al
as 2:2019cv21346
Defendant:
SGT. A. COSTIERA, S C/O I. MATOS, MAJOR FOLEY and others
Plaintiff:
MATHEW SHIELDS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2019cv21110
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
Genesis Ramirez v. Superintendent Cambridge Sprin, et al
as 19-3571
Defendant / Appellee:
SUPERINTENDENT CAMBRIDGE SPRINGS SCI, ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA and DISTRICT ATTORNEY NORTHAMPTON COUNTY
Plaintiff / Appellant:
GENESIS MATOS RAMIREZ
BLEWITT v. LINK et al
as 2:2019cv05003
Defendant:
CYNTHIA LINK and JOANNA MATOS
Plaintiff:
TIMOTHY BLEWITT
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.
