Cases 11 - 20 of 90
George Bridgette v. R. Johnson
as 21-55689
Respondent / Appellee:
R. C. JOHNSON, Warden
Petitioner / Appellant:
GEORGE BRIDGETTE
Avalos v. US
as 21-119
Respondent:
THOMAS RHINEHART, JR., JASON DIGNAN, JOSEPH AUGUSTA and others
Petitioner:
UNITED STATES
Percy et al v. P & H Painting Inc et al
as NYE/1:21-CV-02314
Plaintiff:
Percy, Albert E. Percy and Percy Jobs and Careers Corporation
Defendant:
P & H Painting Inc, Petrie Division, Paco Group Inc and others
Henry Hayes v. R. Johnson
as 21-55382
Petitioner / Appellant:
HENRY CEPHUS HAYES, AKA Henry M. Mitchell, Jr.
Respondent / Appellee:
R. C. JOHNSON, Warden
Tom Franks v. R. Johnson, et al
as 20-17497
Defendant / Appellee:
STANISLAUS SUPERIOR COURT, Judge #8, R. C. JOHNSON, Warden, Warden, Lancaster State Prison and MICHAEL SCHEID, Attorney
Plaintiff / Appellant:
TOM MARK FRANKS
Federal Trade Commission v. National Web Design et al
as 2:2020cv00846
Defendant:
Randon J. Morris, Amazon Affiliate Program a Delaware limited liability company doing business as Affiliate Consultants, The, R&C Consultation a Delaware limited liability company doing business as R&C Consulting and others
Plaintiff:
Federal Trade Commission
Receiver:
Thomas R. Barton
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. ยง 0045
Harlen Rodriguez-Chavez, et al v. Attorney General United States
as 20-3567
Respondent:
ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Petitioner:
A. A. R.-C. and HARLEN ELISA RODRIGUEZ-CHAVEZ
Damiean Johnson v. R. Johnson
as 20-56035
Respondent / Appellee:
R. C. JOHNSON, Warden
Petitioner / Appellant:
DAMIEAN TREMAINE JOHNSON
Martin Seanz Salcido v. R. Johnson, et al
as 20-55991
Defendant / Appellee:
JIAN MA, Doctor, individual and official capacity, CMD STAFF, Unknown Name Doctor, individual and official capacity, R. C. JOHNSON, Warden, Warden, individual and official capacity and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MARTIN SEANZ SALCIDO
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.
