Cases 11 - 20 of 112
Marcus R. Ellington v. California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation et al
as 2:2023cv00883
Plaintiff:
Marcus R. Ellington, Sr.
Defendant:
California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation, K. Allison, R. C. Johnson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
George Aguilar v. T. Macias et al
as 2:2023cv00479
Plaintiff:
George Aguilar
Defendant:
T. Macias, R. Reupold, E. Breen Ethan and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Norman Blanco v. R. Johnson
as 22-56222
Petitioner / Appellant:
NORMAN PAUL BLANCO
Respondent / Appellee:
R. C. JOHNSON, Warden
James Jenkins v. R. Johnson
as 22-56138
Petitioner / Appellant:
JAMES ARTHUR JENKINS
Respondent / Appellee:
R. C. JOHNSON, Warden
Damiean Johnson v. R. Johnson
as 22-56030
Petitioner / Appellant:
DAMIEAN TREMAINE JOHNSON
Respondent / Appellee:
R. C. JOHNSON, Warden
Phillip Conrad Sanders v. R. C. Johnson
as 2:2022cv06798
Petitioner:
Phillip Conrad Sanders
Respondent:
R. C. Johnson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Alfonzo Pickens v. Gloria Martinez et al
as 2:2022cv06579
Plaintiff:
Alfonzo Pickens
Defendant:
Gloria Martinez, S. Rivera and R. C. Johnson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal - Civil Rights Act
Carl D. Stevenson v. Ct. Board of Parole et al
as 2:2022cv06823
Petitioner:
Carl D. Stevenson
Respondent:
Ct. Board of Parole and Warden R. C. Johnson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Nathan D. Phillips v. R. C. Johnson
as 2:2022cv05998
Petitioner:
Nathan D. Phillips
Respondent:
R. C. Johnson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
R.V. Coleman v. R.C. Johnson et al
as 2:2022cv05977
Plaintiff:
R. V. Coleman
Defendant:
R. C. Johnson, J. Knight, M. Fordham and others
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.
