Cases 1 - 10 of 562
William Abner v. US
as 24-1492
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM ABNER, SHANE BOGGS, PATRICK BOWLING and others
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Walker, Jesse A. v. Weisberg et al
as 2:2024cv14161
Plaintiff:
Jesse Alan Walker
Defendant:
Steven Weisberg, Marry-Alice Kym Surowlec, Florida Department of Corrections and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 State Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv00426
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Race)
Coffman v. Roby
as 6:2024cv00040
Petitioner:
Timothy S. Coffman
Respondent:
Amy Roby
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
ROBY v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON et al
as 3:2024cv02634
Plaintiff:
KAYLA ROBY
Defendant:
JOHNSON & JOHNSON, JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., JOHNSON & JOHNSON HOLDCO (NA) INC. and others
Not Yet Classified:
JOHNSON & JOHNSON TALCUM POWDER PRODUCTS MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Roby v. MDOC et al
as 4:2024cv00021
Plaintiff:
Oscar Roby
Defendant:
MDOC, MS William and MS Shorts
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Roby et al v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
as 1:2024cv01343
Plaintiff:
Sonnita Roby and D.P.
Defendant:
Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1407 pl MDL: Products Liability
Coffman v. Roby
as 3:2024cv00053
Petitioner:
Timothy S. Coffman
Respondent:
Amy Roby
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Johnson v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento
as 24-438
Petitioner:
KENT KNOX JOHNSON
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO
Not Classified By Court:
EL DORADO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, DAVID L. DEVORE, MICHAEL J. MCLAUGHLIN and others
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.
