Cases 21 - 30 of 116
Drakos v. Fagen
as 4:2022cv01854
Petitioner:
Robert Thomas Drakos, II and Ronald Thomas Drakos, II
Respondent:
Eric Fagen
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Wooten v. Federal Medical Center Lexington
as 5:2022cv00052
Plaintiff:
Ronald Thomas Wooten
Defendant:
Federal Medical Center Lexington, John Doe, Lt. Lawson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Thomas v. Lumpkin
as 22-20079
Petitioner / Appellant:
Ronald Thomas
Respondent / Appellee:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Drakos v. Gonzalez et al
as 4:2021cv02784
Plaintiff:
Ronald Thomas Drakos, II
Defendant:
Ed Gonzalez and Lori Chambers Gray
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Thomas v. Internal Revenue Service
as 4:2021cv05048
Plaintiff:
Ronald Thomas
Defendant:
Internal Revenue Service
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ronald Thomas v. IRS
as 21-16232
Plaintiff / Appellant:
RONALD THOMAS
Defendant / Appellee:
UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
GIAMBOI v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP et al
as 2:2021cv11836
Defendant:
PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, ASTRAZENECA LP, THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY and others
Plaintiff:
RONALD THOMAS GIAMBOI
In Re:
PROTON-PUMP INHIBITOR PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (No. II)
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Thomas et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. et al
as 2:2021cv03704
Plaintiff:
Ronald Thomas and Theresa Thomas
Defendant:
Davol Inc. and C. R. Bard, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Thomas v. Internal Revenue Service
as 4:2021cv01952
Plaintiff:
Ronald Thomas
Defendant:
Internal Revenue Service
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Thomas v. Lumpkin
as 21-20031
Petitioner / Appellant:
Ronald Thomas
Respondent / Appellee:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
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.
