You are here

Available Cases

Gloria Vargas has filed suit against her former employer, Steven Ratinez, for his alleged discriminatory and disparate treatment of her. Ms. Vargas says that the Defendant treated her (and other black employees) worse due to their race, including verbal harassment and assigning them less pleasant duties, and duties outside of their job descriptions. Ms. Vargas claims that the Defendant treated similarly situated white employees better than her. Ms. Vargas seeks an attorney to help her prosecute her case against her employer, who, she says, has been sued for this (and similar) conduct by other employees. If interested, please email

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that Defendant City of Hollywood violated his right to be free from excessive force under the Fourth Amendment. Plaintiff LeCharles Coakley alleges that while being arrested for trespass and loitering, he was attached by a K-9 officer, beaten with police batons, and dragged by his ankle with a rope until his ankle was dislocated. In his Complaint, Plaintiff submits documentation indicating that the underlying charges stemming from his arrest were dropped due to the states failure to establish reasonable suspicion. Defendant City of Hollywood has filed an Answer, and the case has not yet been set for trial. If interested, please email

Plaintiff Joanne Vena sued Defendants Fraser Yachts, Bella Marine Ventures, and M/Y Keiki Kai under the Jones Act and general maritime law to recover for injuries allegedly caused by Defendants negligence and unseaworthiness of the vessel in failing to provide a safe place to work. Plaintiff has not yet served the Defendants. Plaintiff filed suit on August 10, 2020 and filed an Amended Complaint on October 28, 2020.
If interested, please email

Plaintiff Joshua Henkel is appealing the denial of his claim for disability insurance benefits by the Social Security Administration. Plaintiff claims disability due to spinal arthritis, high blood pressure, and bipolar disorder.  Prior to the onset of his alleged disability, Plaintiff worked as a merchant mariner chief steward.  The volunteer attorney who takes this case will have the opportunity to prepare a motion for summary judgment, respond to briefing by the United States Attorneys Office, and present oral arguments to the Court.  If interested, please email

Santos Diaz v. Centurion of Florida, LLC, et al., (19-CV-24067-UU) Updated 11/05/2020


Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, has been ordered to proceed against (1) Dr. Delgato, primary care physician; (2) Dr. F. Papillon, chief health officer; (3) L. Re. Molina, P.A., physician’s assistant; (4) Mr. Lafont, pharmacist; (5) Mr. M. Corrales, Assistant Warden; and (6) Mark S. Inch, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, in their individual capacities for compensatory and punitive damages. It was also ordered that the case proceed against Centurion of Florida, LLC. Summons has been issued as to all Defendants, service upon Assistant Warden Mario Corrales has been effectuated, and service is pending against all other Defendants.

Mr. Diaz alleges that while incarcerated he received no medical treatment for glaucoma for 5½ months even though doctors had prescribed medication, and he had declared medical emergencies and filed administrative grievances. Plaintiff also alleges that appliances he used because of a physical disability were taken from him upon his arrival at Dade CI, and these appliances were previously prescribed and issued to protect him from injury.

Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages and declaratory relief given the irreversible damage to the optic nerve in both eyes, the forthcoming removal of his right eye, lost vision, and extreme pain.

Mr. Diaz would benefit from having legal representation during discovery and mediation, and at trial. Please contact Kathryn Harlan, courtroom deputy to U.S. District Court Judge Ursula Ungaro by email (, if you are interested in representing Mr. Diaz.

Plaintiff Maxine Tomlinson sued Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. to recover for negligence stemming from injuries she allegedly sustained from a purported slip and fall outside the entrance of the subject Home Depot.  At the Courts order, Plaintiff has been directed to file a response to Defendants motion for summary judgment.  If interested, please email

Plaintiff, Alphonza Bryant, brings this action under Sec. 1983 asserting Eighth Amendment claims against two correctional officers for use of excessive force during an escort to confinement at the Martin Correctional Institution. Plaintiff claims that he was handcuffed behind the back, wearing leg restraints, with each officer holding one of his arms, when the officers deliberately slammed his face into a concrete sidewalk, creating a gash on his chin that required seven internal stitches and five external stiches. He also claims the incident caused severe bleeding from the ear lasting for two days.

The Complaint has been screened by the Court under 28 U.S.C. §1915. The Plaintiff’s claims against the DOC/Julie Jones, Sec’y, were dismissed in that process, while Plaintiff’s individual claims against Officers Martinez and Menocal have survived a motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment. The case has not yet been set for trial. The Plaintiff is currently confined at Baker Correctional Institution in Sanderson, Florida. If interested, please email

Roy and Blanche Dixon bring this action against four Florida state court judges under 1983 for violating their due process rights in a 2013 foreclosure action – specifically by denying them the ability to present an expert witness and in designating him as a vexatious litigant. They also sue Palm Beach County, a state court judge, two mortgage companies, and two defense attorneys for fraud committed in the state court case. Finally, they sue a mortgage company and two attorneys for civil theft, and the two attorneys for tortious interference with a business relationship. If interested, please email

Plaintiff is suing two Miami Beach Police Department officers, in their individual capacities, for allegedly violating his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The case is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

To summarize, Plaintiff alleges that at approximately 4:20 AM on August 3, 2013, Plaintiff and his cousin were driving in Miami Beach after leaving a nightclub and pulled over by the Defendants. Plaintiff claims that they were pulled over by Defendants solely because they were black. Plaintiff further claims that he and his car were searched but failed to reveal evidence of a crime, so Defendants falsely cited Plaintiff for having an inoperable license plate light, which Plaintiff alleges was functioning properly. He also received a ticket for not having a valid drivers license. As a result of the ticket for driving without a valid license, Floyd was later arrested and jailed for violating the conditions of his probation. The City later dismissed both tickets. Plaintiff says that the incident left him very upset, and caused him to become very depressed. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages from the Defendants.

Plaintiffs Amended Complaint has been screened by the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, has survived the motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment stage of the proceedings, and is ready for trial before the Honorable Judge Donald L. Graham. A trial has not been set, and before the case may proceed to trial, the Court has ordered the parties to participate in a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid.

Plaintiff is currently litigating this matter pro se, and has been authorized to proceed in forma pauperis in this case. Plaintiff seeks the assistance of counsel for the settlement conference and, if necessary, the trial. If interested, please email

Petitioner Arlister S. Rush filed this habeas petition on August 3, 2020, a Report and Recommendation was issued on August 25, 2020. Rush has indicated he plans to file objections and would appreciate any assistance from an attorney. Objections are currently due on October 17, 2020. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the petition be dismissed unless the Petitioner can establish that equitable tolling of the one-year limitations period is warranted. If interested, please email