Cases 61 - 70 of 101
WEBSTER et al v. N.J. PAROLE
as 3:2014cv06739
Plaintiff:
JAMES WEBSTER, ANTHONY PEARSON, TYREEN WALKER and others
Defendant:
N.J. PAROLE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Rodney Johnson v. Superintendent Forest SCI, et al
as 14-4078
Plaintiff - Appellant:
RODNEY JERMAINE JOHNSON
Defendant - Appellee:
SUPERINTENDENT FOREST SCI, DISTRICT ATTORNEY YORK COUNTY and ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA
JOHNSON v. NJ STATE PAROLE BOARD
as 3:2014cv06071
Plaintiff:
JERMAINE JOHNSON
Defendant:
NJ STATE PAROLE BOARD
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Bryan Johnson v. Attorney General United State
as 14-1299
Petitioner:
BRYAN JERMAINE JOHNSON
Respondent:
ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. v. Johnson
as 6:2013cv00517
Plaintiff:
Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc.
Defendant:
Jermaine Johnson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Johnson v. USA
as 1:2013cv00092
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
Lashawn Jermaine Johnson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 1:2013cv21949
Plaintiff:
Jermaine Johnson
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 0405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2013cv00039
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1355 Petition for Return of Property
Johnson v. Burns et al
as 1:2013cv00278
Petitioner:
Rodney Jermaine Johnson
Respondent:
Richard Burns, The District Attorney of the County of York and The Attorney General for the State of Pennsylvania
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Johnson v. Epps et al
as 3:2012cv00078
Petitioner:
Marcus Jermaine Johnson
Respondent:
Christopher B. Epps and Attorney General of the State of Mississippi
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
