Cases 1 - 8 of 8
Bradshaw v. Annucci
as 24-819
Defendant:
GRAVELL, Mental Health Therapist, Upstate Correctional Facility, UHLER, Superintendent, Upstate Correctional Facility, R. CANTWELL, Commissioner Hearing Officer, Upstate Correctional Facility and others
Plaintiff:
JAY BRADSHAW
Bradshaw v. Annucci
as 24-416
Defendant:
GRAVELL, Mental Health Therapist, Upstate Correctional Facility, R. BARBOSA, CHO, Mid-State Correctional Facility, R. CANTWELL, Commissioner Hearing Officer, Upstate Correctional Facility and others
Plaintiff:
JAY BRADSHAW
Bradshaw v. Annucci et al
as 6:2021cv06604
Plaintiff:
Jay Bradshaw
Defendant:
Piccolo, Hill, S White and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Bradshaw v. Annucci et al
as 9:2021cv00901
Plaintiff:
Jay Bradshaw
Defendant:
Anthony Annucci, A. Rodriguez, Uhler and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Aguilar v. Reinhart
as 8:2013cv02585
Plaintiff:
Domingo Aguilar
Defendant:
Richard C. Reinhart
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Martinez v. Reinhart
as 8:2011cv02791
Plaintiff:
Javier Martinez
Defendant:
Richard C. Reinhart
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
The Law Office of Christopher, et al v. Swanson Thomas & Coon, et al
as 11-35065
Plaintiff:
JEFFREY POOLE, WINSOME P. CARTER, JAMES C. HOWELL and others
Appellant:
THE LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER J. GRAY, P.C., LOUIS F. BURKE, P.C. and LYNN TILLOTSON PINKER & COX, LLP
Appellee:
SWANSON THOMAS & COON, DOSTART, CLAPP, GORDON & COVENEY, LLP, WINNE, BANTA HETHINGTON, BASRALIAN & KAHN, PC and others
Defendant:
MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC.
Jeffrey Poole, et al v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner
as 10-35154
Plaintiff - Appellee:
JEFFREY POOLE, WINSOME P. CARTER, JAMES C. HOWELL and others
Objector - Appellant:
GREGORY M. CHRISTOPHER, JASON DILAURO and MICHAEL C. SPOLAR
Defendant - Appellee:
MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC.
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.
