Cases 41 - 50 of 4,363
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv05971
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1985 Civil Rights
Darren Johnson v. Baker, et al
as 24-1590
Defendant:
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER WHITLEY, official and personal capacity, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER QUINN, official and personal capacity and CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BAKER, official and personal capacity
Plaintiff:
DARREN DEON JOHNSON
DAY v. USA
as 1:2024cv00595
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
WILLIAM QUINN DAY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate Sentence
Davis v. Osborn Correctional Institution
as 3:2024cv01193
Defendant:
Osborn Correctional Institution
Plaintiff:
Quinne Lamar Davis
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
NELLOM v. PANCKERI et al
as 2:2024cv03045
Defendant:
TIFFANY BOWMAN, DAVID E. SOMERS, III, DELORES MONTGOMERY and others
Plaintiff:
FRANK NELLOM
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
Darren Johnson v. Baker, et al
as 24-1580
Defendant:
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER QUINN, in their official and personal capacity and CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BAKER, in their official and personal capacity
Plaintiff:
DARREN DEON JOHNSON
Lettieri v. Quinn
as 24-1872
Respondent:
PAUL E. BONANNO, LAWRENCE JOSEPH VILARDO, MICHAEL J. ROMER and others
Petitioner:
DAVID C. LETTIERI
Herbert v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al
as 3:2024cv04189
Defendant:
Rasier-CA, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc. and Rasier, LLC
Plaintiff:
Quinn Herbert
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
SINANAN v. QUINN et al
as 1:2024cv00192
Defendant:
STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION ALBION and CORRECTIONS OFFICER QUINN
Plaintiff:
ALLAN LESLIE SINANAN, JR.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
WILSON v. QUINN
as 3:2024cv00317
Petitioner:
STEVIE WILSON
Respondent:
RONNIE QUINN
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.
