Cases 71 - 80 of 181
Thousand v. Corrigan
as 17-3522
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Robert Thousand
Defendant - Appellee:
Sean Corrigan, Correctional Officer; Great Meadow Correctional Facility, Douglas Jones, Correctional Officer; Great Meadow Correctional Facility, Roswell Segovis, Correctional Officer; Great Meadow Correctional Facility and others
Defendant:
John Doe # 1, Correctional Officer; Great Meadow Correctional Facility and John Doe # 2, Correctional Officer; Great Meadow Correctional Facility
Clemmons v. Feltz
as 17-3408
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Anthony Leon Clemmons, Job ID#115661
Defendant - Appellee:
Andrew Hodes, Assistant Director of Labor Relations/ M.N.R., David Plumb, Superintendent of Operations/ OPSV Car Clng, Gerald Lorraine, Executive Vice President Transport Workers Union of America and others
Defendant:
John R. Feltz, President Metro North Railroad, Frederick N. Chidester and Nancy F. Eischen, Chair Person, Metro North
Clemmons v. Feltz
as 17-3408
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Anthony Leon Clemmons, Job ID#115661
Defendant / Appellee:
Andrew Hodes, Assistant Director of Labor Relations/ M.N.R., David Plumb, Superintendent of Operations/ OPSV Car Clng, Gerald Lorraine, Executive Vice President Transport Workers Union of America and others
Defendant:
John R. Feltz, President Metro North Railroad, Frederick N. Chidester and Nancy F. Eischen, Chair Person, Metro North
Canty v. Prack
as 17-3364
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Moshe Cinque Canty
Defendant - Appellee:
T. Tamer, Correctional Sergeant, Sweeney, Correctional Sergeant, D. Venne, Correctional Officer and others
Defendant:
Albert Prack, Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Thomas LaValley, Superintendent, Clinton Correctional Facility, D. Lucia, Correctional Captain/Hearing Officer and others
McGriff v. Superintendent Keyser et al
as 1:2017cv07307
Plaintiff:
Dewitt McGriff
Defendant:
Superintendent Keyser, Hearing Officer Polizzi and Director of SHU Vennetozzi
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Sanford v. Bruno et al
as 1:2017cv05132
Defendant:
Investigator D. Allen, Leslie Bruno, CDC Hearing Officer Daniel Garcia and others
Plaintiff:
Elijah Sanford
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1343 Violation of Civil Rights
Avaras v. Clarkstown Central School Dist
as 17-2679
Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant - Appellant:
Connie Avaras, on behalf of A.A.
Defendant-Counter-Claimant - Appellee:
Clarkstown Central School District and Board of Education, for Clarkstown Central School District
Defendant - Appellee:
New York State Education Department
Defendant:
Wendy Brandenburg, Impartial Hearing Officer, Jane Doe, Attorney for School District, Arnold Fucci, Director of Pupil Services and others
Avaras v. Clarkstown Central School Dist
as 17-2528
Plaintiff - Appellee-Cross-Appellant:
Connie Avaras, on behalf of A.A.
Defendant - Cross-Appellee:
New York State Education Department
Defendant:
Wendy Brandenburg, Impartial Hearing Officer, Jane Doe, Attorney for School District, Arnold Fucci, Director of Pupil Services and others
Defendant - Appellant-Cross-Appellee:
Clarkstown Central School District and Board of Education, for Clarkstown Central School District
Elder v. McCarthy
as 17-2420
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Jarvis Elder
Defendant - Appellee:
J. McCarthy, Sergeant, T. MacIntyre, Correction Officer, Ken Kling, Hearing Officer/Voc. Supr and others
Smythe v. Bish
as 17-2296
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Francis Smythe
Defendant - Appellee:
Joseph Wolczyk, Commissioner's Hearing Officer, Auburn Correctional Facility, sued in his individual and official capacity and Dana McLoughlin, Correction Officer, Auburn Correctional Facility, sued in his individual and official capacity
Defendant:
John Bish, Incarcerated at Auburn Correctional Facility, sued in his individual capacity, K. Wise, Sergeant, Auburn Correctional Facility, sued in his individual and official capacity, Captain Chuttey, Auburn Correctional Facility, sued in his individual and official capacity and others
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.
