Cases 1 - 9 of 9
SELLERS v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON et al
as 3:2018cv01178
Plaintiff:
VICTORIA SELLERS
Defendant:
JOHNSON & JOHNSON , JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC and IMERYS TALC, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Billy Locklear v. Boyd Bennett
as 11-6833
Plaintiff - Appellant:
BILLY RAY LOCKLEAR
Defendant - Appellee:
BOYD BENNETT, Regional Director, DAVID MITCHELL, Facility Administrator, MIKE SLAGLE, 3rd in Command and others
Billy Locklear v. Boyd Bennett
as 11-6449
Plaintiff - Appellant:
BILLY RAY LOCKLEAR
Defendant - Appellee:
BOYD BENNETT, Regional Director, DAVID MITCHELL, Facility Administrator, MIKE SLAGLE, 3rd in Command and others
Billy Locklear v. Boyd Bennett
as 10-6651
Plaintiff - Appellant:
BILLY RAY LOCKLEAR
Defendant - Appellee:
BOYD BENNETT, Regional Director, DAVID MITCHELL, Facility Administrator, MIKE SLAGLE, 3rd in Command and others
Locklear v. Bennett et al
as 1:2010cv00075
Plaintiff:
Billy Ray Locklear
Defendant:
Boyd Bennett, David Mitchell, Maggie Lawler and others
Cause Of Action: Prisoner Civil Rights
Wayne Johnson v. Alvin Keller
as 09-7004
Plaintiff - Appellant:
WAYNE THOMAS JOHNSON
Defendant - Appellee:
ALVIN W. KELLER, Secretary, Department of Corrections, R. DAVID MITCHELL, Superintendent, Mount View Prison, VICTORIA SELLERS, Sergeant at Mount Fiew Prison and others
Johnson et al v. Keller et al
as 1:2009mc00024
Petitioner:
Wayne Thomas Johnson
Respondent:
Alvin Keller, Jr., R. David Mitchell, Victoria Sellers and others
Stuart Tompkins v. Department of Corrections
as 08-6875
Plaintiff - Appellant:
STUART WAYNE TOMPKINS
Defendant - Appellee:
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, T. R. CARROLL, CHRIS BATTEN and others
Tompkins v. Department of Correction et al
as 5:2007ct03152
Plaintiff:
Stuart Wayne Tompkins
Defendant:
Department of Correction, T. R. Carroll, Chris Batten and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
