Cases 1 - 7 of 7
SANTIAGO v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
as 2:2021cv08772
Defendant:
JOHN AND/OR JANE DOES NOS. 1, 2, 3, ECT IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES AS OFFICERS, DETECTIVES, SUPERVISORS, AND/OR OTHER AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES OF DEA'S NEW JERSEY DRUG ENFORCEMENT TASK FORCE 1, DETECTIVE JOSUE VELEZ, STANLEY AND/OR SALLY SOES NOS. 1,2,3, ECT., IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES AS OFFICERS, DETECTIVES, SUPERVISORS, AND/OR OTHER AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES OFTHE HUDSON COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE NARCOTI and others
Plaintiff:
FELIX SANTIAGO
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1343
VELEZ v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 8:2020cv54671
Defendant:
AEARO HOLDING LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE LLC, AEARO TECHNOLOGIES LLC and others
Plaintiff:
JOSUE VELEZ
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Velez v. Deshira Incorporated et al
as 2:2019cv04960
Defendant:
Vjollca Tabaku, Tomor Turkeshi, Deshira Incorporated and others
Plaintiff:
Josue Velez
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
WHEELER v. MARIO et al
as 2:2018cv14726
Defendant:
DET. JOSUE VELEZ, DETECTIVE NOVO MARIO, DETECTIVE ELIZABETH ROMANO and others
Plaintiff:
ANDRE WHEELER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Musaddiq Ahmad v. Norman Glover, et al
as 16-3386
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MUSADDIQ AHMAD
Defendant - Appellee:
NORMAN DOUGLAS GLOVER, DET. MEGAN CONNELL, #182, DET. ROBERT TILL, #149 and others
Defendant - Appellant:
OFFICER CLYDE WASHINGTON, #262
AHMAD v. HUDSON COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE NARCOTICS TASK FORCE et al
as 2:2015cv08994
Plaintiff:
MUSADDIQ AHMAD
Defendant:
HUDSON COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE NARCOTICS TASK FORCE, NORMAN DOUGLAS GLOVER, JERSEY CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
RAMOS v. CITY OF HOBOKEN et al
as 2:2015cv08574
Plaintiff:
ARNOLD RAMOS
Defendant:
CITY OF HOBOKEN, HOBOKEN POLICE DEPARTMENT, KENNETH FERRANTE and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
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.
