Cases 101 - 110 of 749
Velez Funes v. Barr et al
as 1:2020cv00883
Petitioner:
Angel H. Velez Funes
Respondent:
Mr. Thomas Feely, Mr. William Barr, Mr. Jeffrey Searls and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Santana v. Denton et al
as 1:2020cv04352
Defendant:
Geoffrey S. Berman, United States, Hagan Cordell Scotten and others
Plaintiff:
Shajohnny Santana
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Briglin v. Morley et al
as 9:2020cv00614
Defendant:
RN Jane Doe, Corrections Officer "John Doe #2", New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and others
Plaintiff:
Todd R. Briglin
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Bello v. Noeth
as 1:2020cv02184
Respondent:
Superintendent Joseph H. Noeth
Petitioner:
Carmello Bello
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Scott v. Pike County Correctional Facility et al
as 1:2020cv03645
Respondent:
President Gregory H. Chelak, Pike County Correctional Facility and Joshua Shapiro
Petitioner:
Tonia Scott
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Thomas v. Ramos et al
as 1:2020cv03422
Defendant:
Judge Edgardo Ramos, Josh Dratel and Michael H. Sporn
Plaintiff:
Glenn MacPherson Thomas
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Dunn v. Sullivan Co. Jail et al
as 1:2020cv03081
Defendant:
Sullivan Co. Jail, Officer Nash and Jail Admini. H. Smith
Plaintiff:
Robert L. Dunn, Sr.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hamm v. City University of New York et al
as 1:2020cv02876
Defendant:
Herber H. Lehman College, Office Of Students with Disabilities and City University of New York
Plaintiff:
Jeffery Hamm
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Miller v. Fennessey
as 1:2020cv00354
Petitioner:
Melvin H. Miller
Respondent:
Superintendent Fennessey
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
McCray v. Anderson
as 7:2020cv02247
Respondent:
Adrian H. Anderson
Petitioner:
Cerious McCray
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
