Cases 1 - 10 of 32
Cox v. Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS), et al
as 1:2026cv05855
Plaintiff:
Henry Cox
Defendant:
Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS),, Office of Special Investigations and JPay LLC
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Claiborne v. JPay Corp. et al
as 3:2026cv00119
Plaintiff:
Tyel Claiborne
Defendant:
JPay Corp., Securus, LLC./JPay, LLC., Sussex II State Prison and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Whitley v JPA LLC et al
as 2:2025cv14052
Plaintiff:
Antonio Maurice Whitley, Jr.
Defendant:
JPay LLC, Jenson, Chauvez and others
Cause Of Action: No cause code entered
Zielinski v. Martuscello
as 25-2915
Plaintiff:
JEREMY ZIELINSKI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
Defendant:
DANIEL F. MARTUSCELLO, III, Commissioner of New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, JPAY LLC, JULIE WOLCOTT and others
FRANKLIN v. US et al
as 4:2025cv00461
Plaintiff:
JOSHUA D FRANKLIN
Defendant:
US, FLORIDA DOC, SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Claiborne v. JPay Corp. et al
as 7:2025cv00757
Plaintiff:
Tyel Claiborne
Defendant:
JPay Corp., Securus, LLC./JPay, LLC., Sussex II State Prison and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Fleming v. JPay, LLC et al
as 3:2025cv01221
Plaintiff:
Tyrece Fleming
Defendant:
JPay, LLC and Securus LLC
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
KENDRICK v. PABIS et al
as 5:2025cv00279
Plaintiff:
KENNETH JAMES KENDRICK
Defendant:
Warden MICHAEL PABIS and SECURUS JPAY LLC
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Kendrick v. Pabis
as 8:2025cv02477
Plaintiff:
Kenneth J. Kendrick
Defendant:
Warden Michael Pabis and Securus Jpay, LLC
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner 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.
