Ninth Circuit Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 41 - 50 of 862
Delahanty v. Shinn et al
as 2:2022cv00523
Petitioner:
Donald Delahanty
Respondent:
David Shinn, James Kimble and Jeffrey Van Winkle
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution
Shaun Burney v. Ron Broomfield
as 22-99002
Petitioner / Appellant:
SHAUN KAREEM BURNEY
Respondent / Appellee:
RON BROOMFIELD, Warden
Gulbrandson v. Shinn et al
as 2:2022cv00276
Petitioner:
David Gulbrandson
Respondent:
David Shinn, Jeffrey Van Winkle and Stephen Morris
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution
Keck v. Gittere et al
as 3:2022cv00031
Petitioner:
William Keck
Respondent:
Warden William Gittere and Aaron D. Ford
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Richardson v. Gittere et al
as 3:2022cv00017
Petitioner:
Thomas Richardson
Respondent:
Warden William Gittere and Aaron D. Ford
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Ruben Garza, Jr. v. David Shinn, et al
as 22-99001
Petitioner / Appellant:
RUBEN J. GARZA, Jr.
Respondent / Appellee:
DAVID SHINN, Director, RON CREDIO, Warden, Arizona State Prison - Eyman Complex and JASON KIMBLE, Warden, Arizona State Prison - Eyman Complex
Christopher James Sattiewhite v. Warden
as 2:2022cv00127
Petitioner:
Christopher James Sattiewhite
Respondent:
Warden
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution
James Scott v. Ron Broomfield
as 22-99000
Petitioner:
JAMES ROBERT SCOTT
Respondent:
RON BROOMFIELD, Warden, California State Prison at San Quentin
Poyson v. Shinn
as 3:2021cv08259
Petitioner:
Robert Allen Poyson
Respondent:
David Shinn
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Gomez v. Shinn et al
as 2:2021cv01529
Petitioner:
Fabio Evelio Gomez
Respondent:
David Shinn, Walter Hensley and Jeff Van Winkle
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
