Cases 1 - 10 of 35
Ramos-Ramos v. Cohen (INMATE 4)
as 2:2023cv00612
Plaintiff:
Pedro Ramos-Ramos and Pedro J. Ramos-Ramos
Defendant:
Alan Cohen
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Rivera Ramos v. Syngenta AG et al
as 3:2023pq02504
Special Master:
Randi Ellis
Plaintiff:
Pedro Rivera Ramos
Defendant:
Syngenta AG, Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, Chevron USA, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv00610
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv00183
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv00184
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
Ramos-Ramos v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al
as 1:2022cv24084
Plaintiff:
Pedro J. Ramos-Ramos
Defendant:
Federal Bureau of Prisons, Michael Carvajal and Warden Serrano
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Washington et al v. Rivas-Ramos
as 1:2022cv07482
Plaintiff:
SHAQUANA WASHINGTON and ROBERT ADAMS
Defendant:
PEDRO RIVAS-RAMOS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1391 Personal Injury
Ramos-Ramos v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al
as 3:2022cv01359
Petitioner:
Pedro J. Ramos-Ramos
Respondent:
Federal Bureau of Prisons, Michael Carvajal and Warden Serrano
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
US v. Ramos-Ramos
as 22-1005
Appellee:
UNITED STATES
Defendant / Appellant:
PEDRO J. RAMOS-RAMOS, t/n Pedro Juan Ramos-Ramos, a/k/a Pedrito
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2021cv01045
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
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.
