Ninth Circuit Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 61 - 70 of 94,701
(HC) Thompson v. People of the State of California
as 2:2024cv01166
Petitioner:
Robert Wayne Thompson
Respondent:
People of the State of California
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jackson v. Caternolo
as 2:2024cv00547
Petitioner:
Tayan Jackson
Respondent:
R Caternolo
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Bailey v. Borda
as 3:2024cv02307
Petitioner:
Jasper W. Bailey
Respondent:
Warden Ron E. Borda
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jackson v. Caternolo
as 2:2024cv00539
Petitioner:
Tayan Jackson
Respondent:
R Caternolo
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Norton v. Caternolo
as 2:2024cv00540
Petitioner:
Daniel Norton
Respondent:
R Caternolo
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Navarette v. Caternolo
as 2:2024cv00541
Petitioner:
Jorge J Navarette
Respondent:
R Caternolo
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Foletti v. Caternolo
as 2:2024cv00542
Petitioner:
Fredrick D Foletti
Respondent:
R Caternolo
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Anthony Rivas v. Bryan D. Phillips
as 2:2024cv03231
Petitioner:
Anthony Rivas
Respondent:
Bryan D. Phillips
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Oelker v. Idaho State Bar (ISB) et al
as 2:2024cv00770
Petitioner:
Jeromy Oelker
Respondent:
Idaho State Bar (ISB), Director Diane Minnich and Attorney Thomas Clark
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Rowley v. Caternolo
as 2:2024cv00538
Petitioner:
Ryan Rowley
Respondent:
R Caternolo
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
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.
