Cases 1 - 10 of 10
WOODY et al v. REAGLE et al
as 1:2023cv02315
Plaintiff:
BRANDON WOODY, ANTHONY WHITE, MARCO WEBSTER and others
Defendant:
DENNIS REAGLE, MAGGIE BRYANT, CENTURION HEALTH OF INDIANA, LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
JOHNSON v. KNIGHT et al
as 1:2019cv02314
Defendant:
WENDY KNIGHT, EVELYN MCDONALD, HUNT and others
Plaintiff:
JAMES JOHNSON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
REAVES v. TIPTON et al
as 2:2018cv00085
Defendant:
LT. A. CLEMONS, ERIC FONSECA, JAMES JOHNSON and others
Plaintiff:
KEVIN REAVES
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
JOHNSON v. SUPERINTENDENT
as 2:2017cv00397
Petitioner:
JAMES JOHNSON
Miscellaneou:
PUTNAMVILLE CF (Court Use Only)
Respondent:
SUPERINTENDENT
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Johnson v. USA
as 3:2017cv00041
Respondent:
United States of America
Petitioner:
James Johnson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
JOHNSON v. HARLAN BAKERY et al
as 1:2015cv01035
Defendant:
DAVID COFFIN, LUIS CORTEZ, HARLAN BAKERY and others
Plaintiff:
JAMES JOHNSON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
PRONIN v. DUFFEY et al
as 2:2013cv00419
Defendant:
BRIAN BOLLINGER, JEROME BROOKS, DEWICK BRYANT and others
Plaintiff:
DMITRY PRONIN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
FLYNN v. STINE et al
as 1:2010cv01209
Defendant:
KEVIN ALFONT, CHARLES BAKER, MICHAEL EVANSON and others
Plaintiff:
KEITH JAMES FLYNN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Johnson v. Meyerrose et al
as 1:2010cv01197
Defendant:
DET JOHN C, DET WILLIAM MEYERROSE and WILLIAM SMITH
Plaintiff:
JAMES JOHNSON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Johnson v. Meyerrose et al
as 3:2010cv00392
Plaintiff:
James Johnson
Defendant:
Det William Meyerrose, William Smith and Det John C
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
