Cases 11 - 16 of 16
Ramon v. Corporate City of New York
as 19-1156
Defendant / Appellee:
The Corporate City of New York, and it's Executive Officers, Agents, Employees and all persons in active concert or participation with them in the performance of the City Duty ("NYC"), Metro-Dade Miami Police Department, MDMPD, Miami Dade County Jail, DCJ and others
Defendant:
The City of Miami at Dade County Florida, and it's Executive officials, Agents and Employees and persons in active concert, Morrison, Metro-Dade Miami Police Department, Ken Detzner, The Secretary of State of Florida and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Juan Ramon, DBA Juan Candelaria
PERALES v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
as 1:2017cv02268
Plaintiff:
AZAEL DYTHIAN PERALES
Defendant:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DESERT-MOUNTAIN REGION -- BARSTOW OFFICE, OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961
Christopher Ragen v. State of Washington, et al
as 13-35898
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CHRISTOPHER RAGEN
Defendant:
STATE OF WASHINGTON and KING COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, Daniel T. Satterberg
Ragen v. State of Washington et al
as 2:2013cv00512
Plaintiff:
Christopher Ragen
Defendant:
State of Washington and King County District Attorney
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Mc Coy v. Walsh
as 1:2003cv01661
:
, KINGS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE - GENERIC and NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE - GENERIC
Defendant:
James J. Walsh
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Richardson v. Superintendent of Mid-Orange Correctional Facility
as 1:2003cv02061
Plaintiff:
Jermaine Richardson
Defendant:
Superintendent of Mid-Orange Correctional Facility
:
KINGS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE - GENERIC and NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE - GENERIC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
