Cases 41 - 50 of 165
Johnson v. Hicks et al
as 3:2020cv00501
Defendant:
Lt. Barnett, Officer Morre, McQueary Jordan and others
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Plaintiff:
Carvis Lamar Johnson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Lamar v. Saul
as 3:2020cv00202
Defendant:
Andrew Saul
Plaintiff:
Nakia Chermaine Lamar
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 205
Abram v. USA
as 1:2020cv00182
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
Cornell Lamar Abram
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Dearing v. Walker et al
as 5:2020cv00132
Defendant:
W.C.C.F., The Mississippi Department of Correction, The Great State of Mississippi and others
Plaintiff:
Dewayne Dearing
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Johnson v. Bridges et al
as 3:2020cv00328
Defendant:
Officer Unknown Breedlode, Officer Unknown Chaplain and Sgt. Unknown Bridges
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Plaintiff:
Carvis Lamar Johnson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Wallace v. Lamar County Jail Workers et al
as 2:2020cv00072
Defendant:
Lamar County Jail Workers and Lamar County
Plaintiff:
Adam Brent Wallace
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hoffman v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc.
as 1:2020cv00143
Plaintiff:
Johnnie Lamar Hoffman
Defendant:
Huntington Ingalls, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Johnson v. Bramlett et al
as 3:2020cv00204
Defendant:
Rebecca N. Boyd, John K. Bramlett, Matthew A. Baldridge and others
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Plaintiff:
Carvis Lamar Johnson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Conklin v. Estes et al
as 2:2020cv00051
Defendant:
Chip Estes and Lamar County Sheriff's Department
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Plaintiff:
Justin Peter Conklin
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Johnson vs. Bailey
as 3:2020cv00117
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Plaintiff:
Carvis Lamar Johnson
Defendant:
Sheriff Bryant Bailey
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.
