Cases 1 - 10 of 53
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv04867
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Zayas-Cintron v. Hicks, et al
as 3:2023cv01081
Plaintiff:
Luis Guil Zayas-Cintron
Defendant:
C.O. Hicks, Ms. Goss, C.O. Fieni and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
MORRIS v. THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al
as 2:2023cv00878
Plaintiff:
ALFONSO MORRIS, JR.
Defendant:
THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, WARDEN MICHELE FARRELL, WARDEN NANCY GIANETTA and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Spellman v. Doe et al
as 3:2022cv00069
Plaintiff:
Lonnie Spellman
Defendant:
John Doe, Chief Grievance Office, GTL Incorporate and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
CINTRON v. PENCHISHEN et al
as 5:2021cv01140
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL CINTRON
Defendant:
DAVID COLLINS, DAVID PENCHISHEN, BLANE BRANDON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
CINTRON-VAZQUEZ v. VASQUEZ-RODRIGUEZ et al
as 5:2020cv03433
Defendant:
RAMIRO VASQUEZ-RODRIGUEZ, RAMON VAZQUEZ and RAMON G VASQUEZ doing business as ALBERT BROWN CARRIER
Plaintiff:
SAMUEL CINTRON-VAZQUEZ
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
CINTRON-VAZQUEZ v. VASQUEZ-RODRIGUEZ et al
as 2:2020cv03433
Defendant:
RAMIRO VASQUEZ-RODRIGUEZ, RAMON VAZQUEZ and RAMON G VASQUEZ
Plaintiff:
SAMUEL CINTRON-VAZQUEZ
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
CINTRON v. SAUL
as 2:2020cv03420
Plaintiff:
YARIXA CINTRON
Defendant:
Commissioner ANDREW M. SAUL and ANDREW M. SAUL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
CINTRON v. JAMES RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY
as 2:2020cv03029
Defendant:
JAMES RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY
Plaintiff:
MARIA CINTRON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446
CINTRON v. BOSTON MARKET CORPORATION
as 2:2019cv04888
Plaintiff:
MILAGROS CINTRON
Defendant:
BOSTON MARKET CORPORATION
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
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.
