Cases 91 - 100 of 8,354
VISCONTI v. NEWSOM et al
as 1:2023cv03147
Plaintiff:
MAHA VISCONTI and LALA MAHA MOQADDEM (REGRAGUI)
Defendant:
GAVIN NEWSOM, SHERRI BLUEBOND, PATRICIA GUERRERO and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
MOQADDEM v. BURGHARDT et al
as 1:2023cv03148
Petitioner:
MAHA MOQADDEM
Respondent:
JOSEPH BURGHARDT and SUPERIOR STATE COURT OF CALIFORNIA AIRPORT COURTHOUSE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
HALE EL v. PARCHEM et al
as 1:2023cv03115
Plaintiff:
COLBY JEROME HALE EL
Defendant:
PARCHEM, TRUJILLO and PHILLIPS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
REED v. CUSHWA et al
as 1:2023cv03117
Petitioner:
ROBERT ANDREW REED
Respondent:
PATRICIA K. CUSHWA, CHRISTOPHER WHITMER and COLLETTE PETERS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
HALE EL v. PINNACOL ASSURANCE et al
as 1:2023cv03108
Plaintiff:
COLBY JEROME HALE EL
Defendant:
PINNACOL ASSURANCE, EXCEL PERSONNEL INC., TRANSPARENT TECHNOLOGIES and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
SHEPHARD v. HOPKINS et al
as 1:2023cv03129
Plaintiff:
ALONZO DEAN SHEPHARD
Defendant:
JOHN HOPKINS, DENNIS KONICKI, ARRON REGGINAL and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
HALE EL v. MARTINEZ-THOMAS et al
as 1:2023cv03114
Plaintiff:
COLBY JEROME HALE EL
Defendant:
MICHELLE MARTINEZ-THOMAS, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS COLORADO and JANE DOE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Martin Akerman v. USA
as 23-5229
Petitioner / Appellant:
Martin Akerman
Respondent / Appellee:
United States of America
Martin Akerman v. Sherri Doiron
as 23-5230
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Martin Akerman
Defendant / Appellee:
Sherri Doiron
MORGAN v. BIDEN
as 1:2023cv03122
Petitioner:
DAVID BRIAN MORGAN
Respondent:
JOE BIDEN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
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.
