Cases 1 - 10 of 12
Clark v. Patton et al
as 2:2023cv11574
Plaintiff:
Burrell Clark
Defendant:
Renata Patton, Andrea Owens and FNU McCollough
Carrodine v. Michigan Department of Correction's State Prison et al
as 2:2022cv12265
Plaintiff:
James Edward Carrodine
Defendant:
Michigan Department of Correction's State Prison, Macomb Correctional Facility Employee's Food Service Department, Brandon Warriner and others
Price v. Coney et al
as 5:2022cv10884
Plaintiff:
Derione O. Price
Defendant:
Brett Coney, Max Albeman, Kristopher Steece and others
Burrell Clark, et al v. Andrea Owens, et al
as 22-1276
Plaintiff / Appellant:
BURRELL CLARK
Defendant / Appellee:
ANDREA OWENS, OPT Mental Health Case Manager, LISA WALSH, Assistant Resident Unit Supervisor, REGINA JENKINS-GRANT, Resident Unit Manager and others
Rufus Spearman v. Mary Parson, et al
as 20-1913
Defendant / Appellee:
[UNKNOWN] HARRISON, CASE MANAGER KRETZ, PSYCHOLOGIST MITCHELL and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
RUFUS SPEARMAN
DAKER v. HEAD et al
as 5:2020cv00354
Defendant:
LISA FOUNTAIN, JAMES DEMETRIUS SMITH, SARAH BARBER and others
Plaintiff:
WASEEM DAKER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
OWENS v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON et al
as 3:2020cv10145
In Re:
JOHNSON & JOHNSON TALCUM POWDER PRODUCTS MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
Plaintiff:
ANDREA OWENS
Defendant:
JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Spearman v. Parson et al
as 2:2018cv10673
Plaintiff:
Rufus Spearman
Defendant:
Mary Parson, Rick Raymond, Hanna Saad and others
Spearman v. Michigan, State of et al
as 2:2017cv12805
Plaintiff:
Rufus L. Spearman
Defendant:
Michigan, State of, Department of Mental Health, Michigan Department of Corrections and others
Owens, et al v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
as 1:2016cv13212
Plaintiff:
Andrea Owens and MO
Defendant:
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
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.
