Cases 1 - 10 of 16
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2021cv01916
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)
ARUNACHALAM v. HARRIS et al
as 1:2020cv03734
Defendant:
SCOTT S. HARRIS, LAW360/PORTFOLIO MEDIA, INC., JEFFREY ATKINS and others
Plaintiff:
LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
PATTERSON v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
as 1:2020cv00803
Defendant:
ASHLEY MOODY, CARLOS GIMENEZ, WELLPATH RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, INC. and others
Plaintiff:
DIMITRI PATTERSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1343
PATTERSON v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
as 1:2020cv00686
Defendant:
ASHLEY MOODY, CARLOS GIMENEZ, WELLPATH RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, INC. and others
Plaintiff:
DIMITRI PATTERSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1343
PATTERSON v. HARRIS et al
as 1:2019cv00897
Defendant:
MICHAEL DUGGAN, JEFFREY ATKINS, SCOTT S. HARRIS and others
Plaintiff:
DIMITRI PATTERSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
COLEMAN v. THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE et al
as 1:2014cv00709
Plaintiff:
RICHARD COLEMAN
Defendant:
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, KENNETH MCHUGH, C.J. DALIARIS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
COLEMAN v. STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE et al
as 1:2014cv00290
Plaintiff:
RICHARD COLEMAN
Defendant:
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, KENNETH MCHUGH, C.J. DALIARIS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
JONES v. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT et al
as 1:2010cv00910
Plaintiff:
DONALD G. JONES
Defendant:
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, WILLIAM K. SUTER, GAIL JOHNSON and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 241
WEST v. ROBERTS et al
as 1:2010cv00666
Plaintiff:
ARTHUR WEST
Defendant:
JOHN ROBERTS, JEFFREY ATKINS, WILLIAM SUTER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
RICHARDSON v. SUTER et al
as 1:2010cv00577
Plaintiff:
NATHANIEL J. RICHARDSON, JR.
Defendant:
WILLIAM K. SUTER, S. ELLIOTT, SANDY SPAGNOLO and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
