Cases 21 - 30 of 138
Yizar v. City of New Rochelle et al
as 1:2017cv09771
Plaintiff:
Rainier Yizar
Defendant:
City of New Rochelle, Emanuel Gonzales, Diniz Kimberly and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Gonzales v. Graham
as 9:2017cv01321
Petitioner:
Josue Gonzales
Respondent:
Harold D. Graham
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Leckie v. Robinson et al
as 1:2017cv08727
Plaintiff:
Naquan Leckie
Defendant:
Sean Robinson and Mauro Gonzales
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hodge v. Gonzales
as 9:2017cv00837
Petitioner:
John Hodge
Respondent:
Escobon Gonzales
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Smith v. The City of New York et al
as 1:2015cv07910
Plaintiff:
Grayling Smith
Defendant:
The City of New York, Gonzales and Squillaro
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Muhammad v. Rabinowitz et al
as 1:2015cv05651
Plaintiff:
Prince Divine Messiah Muhammad
Defendant:
Steve Rabinowitz, New York State, Vincent Miccoli and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Wingate et al v. New York City et al
as 1:2015cv05621
Plaintiff:
Blake Wingate, Luis Correa, Kenneth Womack and others
Defendant:
New York City, Department of Correction, Board of Correction and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Muhammad v. Rabinowitz et al
as 1:2015cv03683
Defendant:
Paul Amble, Benjamin Chukwuocha, Stuart M. Kirschner and others
Plaintiff:
Mr. Prince Divine Messiah Muhammad
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Muhammad v. New York State et al
as 1:2015cv03104
Plaintiff:
Prince Divine Messiah Muhammad
Defendant:
New York State, Vincent Miccoli, Richard Miraglia and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Gonzales v. Sagerman et al
as 1:2015cv00825
Defendant:
Colombian Consular Elsa Gladys Cifuentes Aranzazu, Judge Roger F Sagerman and Det. Daniel Toro
Plaintiff:
Alexander Nino Gonzales
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
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.
