Cases 11 - 20 of 79
Johnson v. Sam's Club Dept. Store
as 2:2023cv00041
Plaintiff:
Anthony Dewayne Johnson
Defendant:
Sam's Club Dept. Store
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
JOHNSON v. SCOTT
as 3:2023cv00105
Plaintiff:
RODNEY DEWAYNE JOHNSON
Defendant:
A SCOTT
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 7:2022cv00126
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Thomas Dewayne Johnson v. Warden
as 5:2022cv01829
Petitioner:
Thomas DeWayne Johnson
Respondent:
Warden
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Vicky Forrest et al v. Ford Motor Company
as 2:2022cv05010
Plaintiff:
Vicky Forrest, Kathy Foster, Karen Frye and others
Defendant:
Ford Motor Company
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
Forrest et al v. Ford Motor Company
as 1:2022cv00814
Plaintiff:
Vicky Forrest, Kathy Foster, Karen Frye and others
Defendant:
Ford Motor Company
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
Forrest et al v. Ford Motor Company
as DE/1:22-CV-00814
Plaintiff:
Forrest, Vicky Forrest, Kathy Foster and others
Defendant:
Ford Motor Company
Johnson v. Huffman et al
as 3:2022cv00311
Plaintiff:
Rodney Dewayne Johnson
Defendant:
Brand Huffman and Lynn Flinch
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Johnson v. Lamar County Sheriff Dept.
as 2:2022cv00022
Plaintiff:
Anthony Dewayne Johnson
Defendant:
Lamar County Sheriff Dept.
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Boggs et al v. City of Cut Bank et al
as 4:2022cv00014
Plaintiff:
Tra Boggs, Dewayne Johnson and Robert Corby
Defendant:
City of Cut Bank, John Does 1 and 2, Blackfeet Indian Nation and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
