Cases 1 - 10 of 34
LORUSSO v. ARAMARK FOOD SERVICE
as 2:2022cv04553
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL ANTHONY LORUSSO
Defendant:
ARAMARK FOOD SERVICE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
OLIVER v. ARAMARK FOOD INC. et al
as 5:2022cv00467
Plaintiff:
BRIAN C. OLIVER
Defendant:
ARAMARK FOOD INC., ARAMARK SUPERVISOR TASSONE, PRIME CARE MEDICAL, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ANDREWS v. ARAMARK CORP. et al
as 2:2017cv05032
Plaintiff:
DANIEL RUSSELL ANDREWS, SR.
Defendant:
ARAMARK CORP., PHILADELPHIA DEPARTMENT OF PRISONS and CORIZON MEDICAL CENTER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
PITTMAN v. PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP et al
as 3:2017cv00163
Plaintiff:
GABRIEL PITTMAN
Defendant:
PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP, UNITED STATES CONGRESS, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, JEFF SESSIONS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
LEWIS-BEY v. PHILA. DEPT. OF PRISONS et al
as 2:2017cv02890
Plaintiff:
TYRONE LEWIS-BEY
Defendant:
PHILA. DEPT. OF PRISONS, BLANCHE CARNEY, TERRANCE CLARK and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
PRISONERS UNITED TOGETHER ETAL et al v. WOLF
as 2:2015cv05431
Defendant:
TOM WOLF, KATHLEEN KANE, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA and others
Plaintiff:
JOEZIEL VAZQUEZ
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BROWN v. ARAMARK FOOD SERVICE INC. et al
as 2:2015cv04690
Plaintiff:
FREDRICK BROWN
Defendant:
ARAMARK FOOD SERVICE INC., CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, MICHAEL NUTTER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ABNEY v. ARAMARK et al
as 2:2015cv02143
Plaintiff:
TIMOTHY ABNEY
Defendant:
ARAMARK, CORIZON, LOUIS GIORLA and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SHAW v. NUTTER et al
as 2:2014cv04755
Plaintiff:
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN SHAW
Defendant:
MICHAEL NUTTER, LOUIS GIORLA, FERRELL and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
HILL v. PHILADELPHIA INDUSTRIAL CORRECTIONAL CENTER et al
as 2:2014cv03135
Plaintiff:
TYRESE HILL
Defendant:
PHILADELPHIA INDUSTRIAL CORRECTIONAL CENTER and ARAMARK CORP.
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.
