Cases 61 - 68 of 68
David Riggins v. Harold Clarke, et al
as 09-35467
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DAVID RIGGINS, aka Dawud Halisi Malik, AKA Dawud Halisi Malik
Defendant - Appellee:
HAROLD CLARKE, DOC Secretary, RON VAN BOENING, Superintendent MICC, HOUSTON WIMBERLY, Counselor, MICC and others
Terrance Irby v. Carolyn Munden, et al
as 09-35296
Plaintiff - Appellant:
TERRANCE JON IRBY
Defendant - Appellee:
CAROLYN MUNDEN, KAREN SOUTHWELL, STEVE SINCLAIR, Superintendent and others
Brian Johnson v. Washington State Supreme Court, et al
as 09-35209
Plaintiff - Appellant:
BRIAN K. JOHNSON
Defendant - Appellee:
WASHINGTON STATE SUPREME COURT, WASHINGTON STATE SUPERIOR COURT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY PROSECUTORS and others
Danny Brandt v. Harold Clarke, et al
as 09-35186
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DANNY H. BRANDT
Defendant - Appellee:
HAROLD CLARKE, DOC Secretary, KENNETH QUINN, MCC Superintendent, GERALD ISHAM, Segregation Custody Unit Supervisor, MCC/WSR and others
Danny Brandt v. Joseph Lehman, et al
as 09-35163
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DANNY H. BRANDT
Defendant - Appellee:
JOSEPH LEHMAN, former DOC Secretary, GARY FLEMING, MCC Superintendent, PAUL LEEBERG, MCC/MSU Correctional Program Manager and others
Clark Kimbrough v. State of CA, DOC, et al
as 08-17231
Plaintiff - Appellee:
CLARK ALLEN KIMBROUGH
Defendant:
STATE OF CA, DOC, W. WALKER, Jr., DAVID TRISTIAN and others
Defendant - Appellant:
ANTHONY C NEWLAND and EDWARD S ALAMEDIA, Jr.
Eugene Carper v. Washington State Department of, et al
as 08-35514
Plaintiff - Appellant:
EUGENE D. CARPER
Defendant - Appellee:
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, PATRICK BARNES, Physician Assistant, TIM CHRISTMAN, Physician Assistant and others
Michael Pina v. Harold Clarke, et al
as 08-35328
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MICHAEL PINA
Defendant - Appellee:
HAROLD CLARKE, Secretary, DOC, THEODORE LEWIS, CCO, DOC, CLY F. EVANS, RAPM, DOC and others
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.
