Cases 51 - 60 of 836
Joe Rodriguez v. Raybon C. Johnson
as 2:2022cv06054
Petitioner:
Joe Rodriguez
Respondent:
Raybon C. Johnson, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Barrios v. Contra Costa County District Attorney
as 3:2022cv04594
Plaintiff:
Kevin Lee Barrios
Defendant:
Contra Costa County District Attorney, Google Corp., Stanford University and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Wardell Joe v. Allen
as 2:2022cv05246
Petitioner:
Wardell Joe
Respondent:
Allen
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
(PC) Figueroa v. Clark et al
as 1:2022cv00900
Plaintiff:
Ruben Figueroa
Defendant:
Ken Clark, Paul Silva, Susan Doherty and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
(PC) Vrh v. Bergman et al
as 1:2022cv00727
Plaintiff:
Aaron Vrh
Defendant:
Natalyn Bergman, Andrew Ho, Denise M. Pearson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
John William Argel v. Gavin Newsome et al
as 2:2022cv03344
Plaintiff:
John William Argel
Defendant:
Gavin Newsome, Adrian Galvan, Christopher S. Macauley and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
(PC) Miller v. Amador County Jail
as 2:2022cv01094
Plaintiff:
Bobby Joe Miller
Defendant:
Amador County Jail
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Johnson v. Matterson
as 3:2022cv03278
Petitioner:
Joe Randel Johnson
Respondent:
G. G. Matterson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
(PC) Ramirez v. Perez et al
as 1:2022cv00564
Plaintiff:
Israel Ramirez
Defendant:
Perez, Khale, Morales and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
(PC) Vrh v. Bergman et al
as 2:2022cv01023
Plaintiff:
Aaron Vrh
Defendant:
Natalyn Bergman, Andrew Ho, Denise M. Pearson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
