Cases 1 - 9 of 9
Francisco Gil v. James A. Yates, et al
as 13-16668
Plaintiff - Appellant:
FRANCISCO J. GIL
Defendant - Appellee:
J. WOODEND, Lieutenant, H. MARTINEZ, Lieutenant Appeals, M. C. DAVIS, Captain and others
James Menefield v. James Yates, et al
as 12-17600
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JAMES FREDRICK MENEFIELD
Defendant - Appellee:
JAMES A. YATES, Warden, M. C. DAVIS, R. FISHER, Jr. and others
Alvaro Quezada v. A. Herrera, et al
as 12-16886
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ALVARO QUEZADA
Defendant - Appellee:
A. HERRERA, M. C. DAVIS, P. DANIELS and others
Brady Armstrong v. James Yates, et al
as 11-17753
Plaintiff - Appellant:
BRADY K. ARMSTRONG
Defendant - Appellee:
JAMES A. YATES, Chief Executive Officer (Warden) at Pleasant Valley State Prison, R. H. TRIMBLE, Associate Warden at Pleasant Valley State Prison, M. C. DAVIS, Facility Captain at Pleasant Valley State Prison and others
Antoine McCullough v. James Yates, et al
as 11-15795
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ANTOINE J. MCCULLOUGH
Defendant - Appellee:
JAMES A. YATES, R. H. TRIMBLE, M. C. DAVIS, Capt. and others
Francisco Gil v. James Yates, et al
as 11-15266
Plaintiff - Appellant:
FRANCISCO J. GIL
Defendant - Appellee:
JAMES A. YATES, J. WOODEND, M. C. DAVIS and others
Brady Armstrong v. James Yates, et al
as 10-16614
Plaintiff - Appellant:
BRADY K. ARMSTRONG
Defendant - Appellee:
JAMES A. YATES, R. H. TRIMBLE, M. C. DAVIS and others
David Johnson, Jr. v. USDCFR
as 09-72974
:
In re: DAVID JOHNSON, Jr.
Petitioner:
DAVID JOHNSON, Jr.
Respondent:
USDC, FRESNO
Real Party In Interest:
DENNIS L. BECK, ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, EDMUND G. BROWN and others
David Johnson, Jr. v. USDC-CEF
as 09-72402
:
In re: DAVID JOHNSON, Jr.
Petitioner:
DAVID JOHNSON, Jr.
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, FRESNO
Real Party In Interest:
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr., JAMES YATES 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.
