Cases 61 - 70 of 102
Michael James Horton v. Clark E. Ducart
as 2:2015cv07847
Respondent:
Clark E. Ducart
Petitioner:
Michael James Horton
Williams v. Ahern et al
as 3:2015cv03955
Plaintiff:
Gregory Tyrone Williams
Defendant:
Gregory Ahern, Sterling Horton and County of Alameda
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Richard Lawrence Horton et al v. L.A. County Jail Medical Staff
as 2:2015cv05439
Plaintiff:
Richard Lawrence Horton
Defendant:
L.A. County Jail Medical Staff and C. A. Muneton
Peralta v. Corizon Health Services et al
as 1:2015cv01090
Plaintiff:
Michael Peralta
Defendant:
Corizon Health Services, Fresno County Jail, Horton and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Horton v. Siskiyou County Jail
as 2:2015cv01503
Plaintiff:
Marcus D. Horton
Defendant:
Siskiyou County Jail
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Horton v. Alaska Dept. of Corrections et al
as 3:2015cv00009
Plaintiff:
Mark Stephin Horton
Defendant:
Alaska Dept. of Corrections, Joe Schmit, Ron Taylor and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Zepeda-Zalaberry v. Smith et al
as 2:2014cv02738
Plaintiff:
Francisco Zepeda-Zalaberry
Defendant:
Dennis Smith, United States of America, R Willis and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Horton v. Maricopa County Supervisors et al
as 2:2014cv00962
Plaintiff:
Daniel Horton
Defendant:
Maricopa County Supervisors, Maricopa County Superior Court, Maricopa County Attorney's Office and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Charles Boyd et al v. County of Riverside et al
as 5:2014cv00336
Defendant:
Access Securepak, Alverez, Amador and others
Plaintiff:
Charles Boyd, John Brown, Robert Castro and others
Blythe, Indio, RPDC, Smith, SWBC:
Riverside County Jail System
Tony Hill v. Michele Douglas, et al
as 14-55213
Plaintiff - Appellant:
TONY LEE HILL
Defendant - Appellee:
MICHELE DOUGLAS, Attorney, individual and PARIS HORTON, Attorney, individual
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.
