Cases 1 - 10 of 29
Aversano et al v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
as 1:2018cv11785
Plaintiff:
Christopher Baione, John Kazmierczak, Robert Crook, Jr and others
Defendant:
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1605 A Antiterrorism & Effective Death Penalty Act 1996
Dixon v. Montgomery et al
as 1:2017cv05262
Plaintiff:
Thomas Dixon
Defendant:
Montgomery, J. Negron and J. Figueroa
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Dixon v. Huffman et al
as 1:2017cv03349
Plaintiff:
Thomas Dixon
Defendant:
Huffman, Elberth, D. Ladenhauf and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Dixon v. Woodbourne Correctional Facility et al
as 1:2017cv03350
Plaintiff:
Thomas Dixon
Defendant:
Woodbourne Correctional Facility, Charles, Ryan Bowery and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Dixon v. Huffman et al
as 1:2017cv02740
Plaintiff:
Thomas Dixon
Defendant:
Huffman, W. Elberth, Rohan and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Dixon v. Woodbourne Correctional Facility et al
as 1:2017cv01785
Plaintiff:
Thomas Dixon
Defendant:
Woodbourne Correctional Facility, Ryan Bowery, Charles and others
Ixthparty_defendant:
Hoxie
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Dixon v. Minglon et al
as 2:2017cv01195
Defendant:
Captain N. Boyle, Sgt. Richard Congro, PO Michael Finter and others
Plaintiff:
Thomas Dixon
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Dixon v. Sablinski et al
as 1:2017cv01500
Plaintiff:
Thomas Dixon
Defendant:
E. Sablinski, Montgomery, Cuello and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Dixon v. Fishkill Correctional Facility et al
as 1:2017cv01123
Plaintiff:
Thomas Dixon
Defendant:
Fishkill Correctional Facility, Department of Security Services, S. Urbanskt and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Dixon v. Minglon et al
as 6:2017cv06065
Plaintiff:
Thomas Dixon
Defendant:
Bernadette Minglon, Kim Rognon, O'Leary 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.
