Cases 51 - 59 of 59
Stanko v. Davis et al
as 1:2008cv02659
Petitioner:
Rudy Stanko
Respondent:
Blake Davis and Harley Lappin
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
Stanko v. Davis et al
as 1:2008cv02615
Petitioner:
Rudy Stanko
Respondent:
Blake Davis and Harley Lappin
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
Valenzuela v. United States of America
as 1:2008cv00694
Plaintiff:
Rudy Valenzuela
Defendant:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
Stanko v. Davis, et al
as 08-1094
Plaintiff - Appellant:
RUDY STANKO, individually and on behalf of similarly situated prisoners
Defendant - Appellee:
BLAKE DAVIS, individually and in his official capacity as a Warden, MICHAEL K. NALLEY, individually and in his official capacity as Regional Director and HARLEY LAPPIN, individually and in his official capacity as Director DEFENDANTS 1X THROUGH 6X, individually and in he/she's [sic] official capacity
Rhodes v. Raymond et al
as 5:2007cv03228
Plaintiff:
Ronald L Rhodes
Defendant:
Don Raymond, Roger Werholtz, David R. McKune and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Stanko v. Davis et al
as 1:2007cv01791
Plaintiff:
Rudy Stanko and Rudy (I) Stanko
Defendant:
Blake (I) Davis, Blake Davis, Michael (I) K. Nalley and others
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
Cabrera v. Zavaras, et al
as 07-1342
Petitioner - Appellant:
RUDY O. CABRERA
Respondent - Appellee:
ARISTEDES W. EXEC. DIR. ZAVARAS, Exc. Dir. of the Dept. of Corr. and JOHN SUTHERS, The Attorney General of the State of Colorado
Stanko v. Davis
as 1:2007cv01635
Petitioner:
Rudy Stanko
Respondent:
Blake Davis
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Cabrera v. Zavaras et al
as 1:2007cv01189
Petitioner:
Rudy O. Cabrera
Respondent:
Ari Zavaras and John Suthers
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.
