Cases 1 - 10 of 13
Johnson v. The City of New York et al
as 1:2022cv05743
Alternative Dispute Resolution (Adr) Provider:
THE CITY OF NEW YORK and New York City Police Department
Plaintiff:
Lamar Johnson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 vp Violation of Due Process and Equal Protection
JOHNSON, ET AL V. BELL, ET AL
as 7:2020cv00004
Defendant:
BRIAN BELL, RODNEY BRYAN, BRANDON BELL and others
Plaintiff:
KENDRICK LAMAR JOHNSON, KENNETH JOHNSON and JACQUELYN JOHNSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Johnson v. Head et al
as 5:2019cv00722
Defendant:
Glen Ray Smith, Eddie Davis, Lyn Head and others
Plaintiff:
David Lamar Johnson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Johnson v. City of Montgomery (JOINT ASSIGN)(MAG2)
as 2:2017cv00552
Plaintiff:
Jeremy Lamar Johnson
Defendant:
City of Montgomery
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 16-16010
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2013cv00143
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
David Johnson v. United States Postal Service, et al
as 13-14976
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DAVID LAMAR JOHNSON
Defendant - Appellee:
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE CLAYTON, ALABAMA, U.S. POSTAL INSPECTOR, (Clayton) in their individual and official capacity and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2012cv00042
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Johnson v. Maroco
as 1:2009cv01173
Plaintiff:
Nathan Lamar Johnson
Defendant:
Harry Maroco
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2009cv01588
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal - Employment Discrimination
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.
