Cases 71 - 80 of 100
Howell v. Massachusetts Attorney General, et al
as 22-1475
Plaintiff / Appellant:
CURTIS HOWELL
Defendant / Appellee:
MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, LOWELL POLICE DEPARTMENT and others
Defendant:
BILLERICA HOUSE OF CORRECTION and DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION
Garcia v. US Postal Service
as 1:2022cv01111
Plaintiff:
Troy Garcia
Defendant:
US Postal Service
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Pronin v. Penry et al
as 1:2022cv00104
Plaintiff:
Dmitry Pronin
Defendant:
S Penry, FNU Van Ness, FNU Tenner and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2022cv00063
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question Bivens-Prisoner
Chan et al v. United States et al
as 5:2022cv00736
Plaintiff:
Allen Chan and Margarette Chan
Defendant:
United States, US Postal Service and Marlon B Parilla
Cause Of Action: 23 U.S.C. § 134 P.I.- Auto Negligence
Wilson v. US Postal Service et al
as 2:2022cv02041
Plaintiff:
Tasha Latrice Wilson
Defendant:
US Postal Service and Louis Dejoy
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 2601
RICHARDS v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
as 2:2022cv00218
Lead Plaintiff:
Franklin Richards
Defendant:
US POSTAL SERVICE and UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury
NLRB v. USPS
as 22-1049
Petitioner:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent:
US POSTAL SERVICE
Interested Party:
HEATHER L. TAYLOR, NLRB Specialist, ROBERT A. PEROCCHI, JR., President, American Postal Workers Union, Bangor, LAURA A. SACKS, Regional Director and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2021cv01591
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Rochester v. Williams et al
as 6:2021cv03413
Plaintiff:
Julian E Rochester
Defendant:
C ` Williams, B Stirling, H D McMaster and others
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.
