Cases 11 - 20 of 109
Stevie Stevenson v. Jeffrey Beard, et al
as 22-55246
Plaintiff / Appellant:
STEVIE J. STEVENSON
Defendant / Appellee:
JEFFREY BEARD, PHD: Secretary of CDCR, SCOTT KERNAN, Undersecretary/Secretary of CDCR, SHANNON SWAIN, Acting Superintendent of Education and others
Miron v. Madden
as 5:2022cv00900
Petitioner:
Anthony B. Miron
Respondent:
R. Madden
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Brown v. Madden
as 3:2021cv08606
Petitioner:
Jereme Brown
Respondent:
R. Madden
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Orcasitas v. Ko et al
as 3:2021cv00143
Plaintiff:
Joe Tomas Orcasitas, Jr.
Defendant:
Doctor Ko, M.D. and Mr. R. Madden
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
MADDEN v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON et al
as 3:2020cv10674
Defendant:
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., JOHNSON & JOHNSON and PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS COUNCIL (PCPC)
Plaintiff:
BRENDA MADDEN and BRENDA R. MADDEN
In Re:
JOHNSON & JOHNSON TALCUM POWDER PRODUCTS MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Grady v. Alonzo et al
as 3:2020cv01273
Defendant:
J. Blackstock, R. Briceno, Mario Alonzo and others
Plaintiff:
Mitchell Quintin Grady
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
Walker v. Gonzalez et al
as 3:2020cv00404
Defendant:
Montiano, Gonzalez, R. Madden and others
Plaintiff:
Aaron M. Walker
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
Martin Gonzalez v. R. Madden
as 2:2020cv01803
Petitioner:
Martin Gonzalez
Respondent:
R. Madden
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Edwin Akin v. R. Madden
as 20-55046
Petitioner / Appellant:
EDWIN AKIN
Respondent / Appellee:
R. MADDEN, Warden Centinela Prison
Consol of Kentrucky, Inc., et al v. Allen Madden, et al
as 19-4089
Respondent:
BENEFITS REVIEW BOARD, ALLEN R. MADDEN and DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, United States Department of Labor
Petitioner:
CONSOL OF KENTUCKY, INC.
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.
