Woods, Jr. et al v. County of Tehama et al
| James Woods, Jr. and James Woods, Sr. |
| Successor in Interest or Estate of Kevin Neal, The Rancho Tehama Association Inc., Assistant Sheriff Phil Johnson; in his individual and official capacity as Assistant Sheriff for the County of Tehama Sheriff Department, Sheriff Dave Hencratt, in his individually and official capacity as Sheriff for the County of Tehama Sheriff Department, County of Tehama and Tehama County Sheriffs' Office |
| 2:2018at01683 |
| November 5, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 5, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT for Damages against Assistant Sheriff Phil Johnson; in his individual and official capacity as Assistant Sheriff for the County of Tehama Sheriff Department, County of Tehama, Sheriff Dave Hencratt, in his individually and official capacity as Sheriff for the County of Tehama Sheriff Department, Successor in Interest or Estate of Kevin Neal, Tehama County Sheriffs' Office, The Rancho Tehama Association Inc. by James Woods, Sr., James Woods, Jr.. Attorney Barr, Cathleen Theresa added. (Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0972-7954266) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet)(Barr, Cathleen) |
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 Eastern 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.
