US District Court for the Southern District of California Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 91 - 100 of 4,080
Jones v. Oceanside Police Department
as 3:2023cv00237
Petitioner:
Wayne E. Jones
Respondent:
Oceanside Police Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jones v. City of Oceanside et al
as 3:2023cv00240
Petitioner:
Wayne E. Jones
Respondent:
City of Oceanside and Oceanside Police Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Samaniego v. Cates et al
as 3:2023cv00188
Petitioner:
Jose L. Samaniego
Respondent:
B. Cates and Rob Bonta
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Nieber v. Robertson
as 3:2023cv00174
Petitioner:
Toren Nieber
Respondent:
Jim Robertson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Turley v. Peterson
as 3:2023cv00123
Petitioner:
Macey E. Turley
Respondent:
A. Peterson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Stewart v. Bonta
as 3:2023cv00070
Petitioner:
Thyrone Ryan Stewart
Respondent:
Rob Bonta
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jenkins v. Lynch et al
as 3:2023cv00068
Petitioner:
Markeith Jenkins
Respondent:
Jeff Lynch and Rob Bonta
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jensen v. The People
as 3:2023cv00058
Petitioner:
Jacob Jensen
Respondent:
The People
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Duran v. McDowell
as 3:2023cv00051
Petitioner:
Pablo Duran
Respondent:
Niel McDowell and Neil McDowell
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Blackgold v. Madden
as 3:2023cv00013
Petitioner:
Suten Blackgold
Respondent:
Raymond Madden
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
