You are here

Available Cases

This is a negligence case under agency theory. Pro se Plaintiff alleges that an Apple Store employee dropped something on her arm during a service appointment, causing injury. The trial is set for June 6, 2022, and mediation is scheduled for February 8. However, both parties have indicated a willingness to settle, and Judge Ruiz has ordered a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart. If interested, please email

Pro se Plaintiffs Raul Cardenas and Layda Mazzarona filed a complaint asserting claims for negligence, wrongful death, and civil rights violation. Plaintiffs allege that the Miami-Dade Police Department, City of Miami Police Department, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are responsible for the improper actions of officers who fatally shot and killed Mr. Alexander Carballido on September 20, 2018. Defendants Miami-Dade Police Department and City of Miami Police Department have responded to the complaint. Volunteer representation would entail representing Plaintiff Layda Mazzarona during all pretrial proceedings, including discovery, mediation, and at trial, if necessary. If interested, please email

Plaintiff, Austin Nabeack, has filed a claim under 28 U.S.C. section 1983 against several officers of the Martin County Jail, alleging a procedural due process claim.  Specifically, Plaintiff alleges Defendants confined him in administrative segregation without a hearing or any other opportunity to be heard. Plaintiff further alleges Defendants have kept him in segregated confinement for over 6 months without meaningful review, despite admitting he has demonstrated satisfactory behavior.  Upon initial screening, the Court dismissed a related equal protection class-of-one claim.

Defendants have been served, but they have not yet appeared in this case.  Their response to the Complaint is due February 2, 2022. If interested, please email

The Government on behalf of its Agency, the United States Small Business Administration, has filed a lawsuit against Cedric Lathan to foreclose on a mortgage on real estate located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Government alleges that Defendant has defaulted on a promissory note. Defendant Cedric Lathan is seeking representation through the Volunteer Attorney Program. If interested, please email

This civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was screened and allowed to proceed on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference against the named Defendants arising from the Defendants’ failure to protect him from being attacked by another inmate on May 13, 2019 while he was confined at the South Bay Correctional Facility. The Defendants’ motion to dismiss was denied, and they have now filed an Answer to the Complaint.  Trial is currently scheduled for September 26, 2022, and volunteer representation would entail representing Plaintiff during all proceedings, including mediation, and at trial, if necessary. If interested, please email


This Bivens civil rights case arises from purported use of excessive force by law enforcement during an arrest. Specifically, pro se Plaintiff, Pender Senatus, alleges employees of the Broward County Sheriffs Office, who had been deputized by the United States Marshals, beat and hog-tied him while attempting to effect an arrest. Plaintiff alleges he sustained severe injuries as a result of the beating, including several hematomas, a fractured jaw, and possible permanent damage to his right arm. Consequently, Plaintiff brought  suit against the individual officers allegedly involved in the incident. Plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages. If interested, please email


Defendant, Beach Jads Corporation, needs a volunteer attorney to represent it in an action filed by Plaintiff, Victor Ariza, under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant controls, maintains, and /or operates a website,, which fails to comply with the ADA because is not accessible to persons who are visually disabled. On May 24, 2022, the Court held a status conference with Plaintiff’s counsel and Ana Maria Zuleta, who is the owner of the Defendant corporation, at which she explained that she operates a Coconut Grove clothing store. The Court advised Ms. Zuleta that because she is not an attorney, she cannot represent her company in this case. Ms. Zuleta advised that she in unable to retain an attorney. The Court wishes to avoid entry of a default judgment, and for that reason, it extended the deadline for Defendant to file its response to the Complaint for sixty days, until July 25, 2022. At the status conference, counsel for Plaintiff and Ms. Zuleta stated they are receptive to conferring to try to resolve the matter, and this suggests that representation of Defendant is not likely to be lengthy. Any interested volunteer attorney should email Thank you.

Plaintiff Richard Christopher Johnson filed this action against the City of Miami Beach (the “City”) and Miami Beach Police Officer Christopher Aguila (“Officer Aguila”) alleging use of excessive force, false imprisonment, and civil battery, all asserted as 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. The only remaining claims are the following: (1) use of excessive force against Officer Aguila (Count II); (2) state law battery against the City (Count V); and state law battery against Officer Aguila (Count VI). This case has been set for trial on this Court’s two-week trial calendar beginning on June 21, 2022. Plaintiff seeks representation of counsel for trial. If interested, please email

Plaintiff, who is incarcerated at Highlands County Jail, brings one claim of malicious prosecution against a Detective from the Highlands County Sheriffs Department. If interested, please email

Plaintiffs, Michael and Cheryl Lica, claim that they are entitled to a tax refund from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in connection with their 2011 tax return. Plaintiffs allege that they attempted, but failed, to obtain relief directly through the IRS, which Plaintiffs allege “has maintained that the Plaintiffs’ claims of refund were untimely when they clearly were not.” In total, Plaintiffs seek a refund of $10,732.96. Plaintiffs filed the currently pending Amended Complaint on March 9, 2022. No defendants have been served with process. If interested, please email