Cases
Cases 1 - 10 of 48
Khalil v. State of New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision Parole Board et al
as 9:2024cv00580
Petitioner: Ahmed S. Khalil and Ahmed Shawki Mohamed Khalil
Respondent: State of New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision Parole Board and Nicole Irby
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Zielinski et al v. New York Department Of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) et al
as 9:2024cv00450
Plaintiff: Jeremy Zielinski, Travis Hudson, Bruce Moses and others
Defendant: New York Department Of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS), Daniel F. Martuscello, III, David Howard and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Saunders v. Dixon et al
as 9:2024cv00012
Plaintiff: Courtney J. Saunders
Defendant: Stacy Dixon, Melissa M. Davis and State of New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Saunders v. Dixon et al
as 5:2023ct03354
Plaintiff: Courtney J. Saunders
Defendant: Stacy Dixon, Melissa M. Davis and State of New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Brown v. James
as 23-7864
Petitioner / Appellant: DARRYL BROWN
Respondent / Appellee: LETITIA JAMES, In her official capacity as Attorney General of New York, ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, In his official capacity as the acting Commissioner for the New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and MICHAEL KIRKPATRICK, In his official capacity as Superintendent of the Clinton Correctional Facility
Gosier v. Paolozzi et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 9:2023cv01135
Plaintiff: Willie Thomas Gosier
Defendant: State of New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, William Paolozzi and Anthony Stucchi
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Vance v. The State of New York Department of Corrections
as 22-3206
Plaintiff / Appellant: Wayne Phillip Vance
Defendant / Appellee: Glen Engstrom, Officer, Clinton Correctional Facility, Ambrose Waldron, Officer, Clinton Correctional Facility, Chad Rowe, Officer, Clinton Correctional Facility and others
Defendant: The State of New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Anthony J. Annucci, Commissioner of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Karen Bellamy, Director, Inmate Grievance Program for DOCCS and others
Vance v. The State of New York Department of Corrections
as 22-3095
Plaintiff / Appellant: Wayne Phillip Vance
Defendant: The State of New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Anthony J. Annucci, Commissioner of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Karen Bellamy, Director, Inmate Grievance Program for DOCCS and others
Defendant / Appellee: A. Rodriguez, Director, Special Housing and Disciplinary Program, DOCCS, Mr. Weishaupt, Special Investigator, DOCCS, Glen Engstrom, Officer, Clinton Correctional Facility and others
Vidal v. State of New York
as 22-2729
Plaintiff / Appellant: Joseph Vidal
Defendant / Appellee: Anthony J. Annucci, Acting Commissioner, State of New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Anthony Rodriguez, Acting Director of Special Housing Unit/Inmate Disciplinary Program, Eric Corbett, Food Service Administrator/Disciplinary Hearing Officer, Great Meadow Correctional Facility and others
Defendant: State of New York, Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Phil Melecio, Deputy Superintendent for Programs and others
Cade v. The State of New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision et al
as 9:2022cv00751
Plaintiff: Jeremy Cade
Defendant: The State of New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and State of New York
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.


Why Is My Information Online?