Javier Ricardo Bentancourt v. Cantil-Sakauye et al
| Javier Ricardo Bentancourt and Javier Ricardo Bentancourt doing business as Javier Ricardo Betancourt |
| Xavier Becerra, Corrigan, Sakauye, Liu, Nares, Judge Chin, Chin, Cuellar, Micheal B. Donner, Mark A. Cope, Groban, Benke, Cantil-Sakauye, Kruger, Irion, Heather F. Crawford, Michael A. Hestrin, Natalie M. Lough, Rod Pacheco and Charles W. Hughes |
| 2:2019cv09933 |
| November 20, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| David O Carter |
| Douglas F McCormick |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 11, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiff Javier Ricardo Bentancourt. (sbou) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge David O. Carter and referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick. (ghap) |
| Filing 3 MOTION for Appointment of Counsel filed by plaintiff Javier Ricardo Bentancourt. (ghap) |
| Filing 2 REQUEST to Proceed In Forma Pauperis with Declaration in Support filed by plaintiff Javier Ricardo Bentancourt. (ghap) |
| Filing 1 CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT filed against Defendants Xavier Becerra(The Attorney General of California, official capacity), Xavier Becerra(individual), Benke(District Division One of California Justice Judge, official capacity), Benke(individual), Cantil-Sakauye(individual), Cantil-Sakauye(California Supreme Court Justice Judge, official capacity), Chin(California Supreme Court Justice Judge, official capacity), Chin(individual), Mark A. Cope(The Riverside County Presiding Justice Judge, official capacity), Mark A. Cope(individual), Corrigan(individual), Corrigan(California Supreme Court Chief Justice Judge, official capacity), Heather F. Crawford(individual), Heather F. Crawford(The Attorney General of California Lead Deputy Attorney, official capacity), Cuellar(California Supreme Court Associate Justice Judge, official capacity), Cuellar(individual), Micheal B. Donner(The Riverside COunty Superior Court (Hall of Justice) Presiding Justice Judge, offficial capacity), Micheal B. Donner(individual), Groban(individual), Groban(California Supreme Court Associate Justice Judge, official capacity), Michael A. Hestrin(individual), Michael A. Hestrin(The California District Attorney of the County of Riverside, official capacity), Charles W. Hughes(The California District Attorney of the County of Riverside Deputy, official capacity), Charles W. Hughes(individual), Irion(District Division One of California Justice Judge), Irion(individual), Kruger(California Supreme Court Associate Justice Judge, official capacity), Kruger(individual), Liu(California Supreme Court Associate Justice Judge, official capacity), Liu(individual), Natalie M. Lough(The California District Attorney of the County of Riverside Deputy, official capacity), Natalie M. Lough(individual), Nares(individual), Nares(District Division One of California Justice Judge, official capacity), Rod Pacheco(The California District Attorney of the County of Riverside, official capacity), Rod Pacheco(individual), Sakauye(individual), Sakauye(California Supreme Court Presiding Justice, official capacity) pursuant to 42:1983. Case assigned to Judge David O. Carter and referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick., filed by plaintiff Javier Ricardo Bentancourt. (ghap) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
