Cases 1 - 10 of 30
Pinney v. Police of La Salle Illinois, et al
as 24-1035
Plaintiff:
JOHNATHAN PINNEY, a/k/a Gitapushy Val Angel
Defendant:
LASALLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, LASALLE COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY, LASALLE COUNTY COURT and others
Pinney v. Police of la Salle, IL et al
as 1:2023cv12414
Plaintiff:
Jonathan Pinney and Gitapushy Val Angel
Defendant:
Police of la Salle, IL, Housing Authority of la Salle County IL, Court of la Salle County, IL and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Alexander v. Amtrak et al
as 1:2022cv04019
Plaintiff:
Liam Alexander
Defendant:
Amtrak and Amtrak Police
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Prisoner Civil Rights
Pruitt v. Cook County Circuit Courts et al
as 1:2021cv05759
Plaintiff:
Brandon Demon Pruitt
Defendant:
Cook County Circuit Courts, Cook County Public Defenders Office, Sheriff Thomas J. Dart and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Swint v. Oregon State Mental Hospital et al
as 1:2021cv00531
Defendant:
Spacex, State of Oregon, Central Intelligence Agency and others
Plaintiff:
Robert James Swint
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Rodriguez v. Perry et al
as 1:2020cv01228
Defendant:
FNU Chavez, John Anderson, William P Johson and others
Plaintiff:
Rodolfo Rodriguez
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Tinsley v. Amtrak et al
as 1:2020cv00821
Plaintiff:
Joshua Tinsley
Defendant:
Jarrell Perry and Amtrak
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Nagel v. Hilton et al
as 1:2019cv00123
Defendant:
Charles Tynon, Legal/Compliance Manager Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Company of Bruce Fyfe and others
Plaintiff:
Marcus Nagel
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Rodriguez v. Amtrak et al
as 1:2019cv00111
Plaintiff:
Rodolfo Rodriguez
Defendant:
C Chaves, J Perry and Amtrak
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
WOMACK v. AMTRAK
as 2:2018cv05478
Defendant:
AMTRAK
Plaintiff:
DAVID WOMACK
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.
