Cases 1 - 9 of 9
Anderson v. Miller et al
as 6:2019cv00668
Defendant:
John & Jane Does, Heidi Miller, Christopher DiGiulio and others
Plaintiff:
Donald Anderson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Bonilla v. Anderson
as 3:2017cv06239
Plaintiff:
Steven Wayne Bonilla
Defendant:
Donald Anderson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Donald Montgomery v. Anna Jacobs, et al
as 12-16763
Petitioner - Appellant:
DONALD ANDERSON MONTGOMERY
Respondent - Appellee:
ANNA M. JACOBS, Deputy Warden and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Montgomery v. Jacobs et al
as 2:2011cv01467
Petitioner:
Donald Anderson Montgomery
Respondent:
Anna Jacobs and Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Donald Montgomery v. Charles Krull, et al
as 11-15484
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DONALD ANDERSON MONTGOMERY
Defendant - Appellee:
CHARLES KRULL, Attorney Supervisor at Office of the Public Defender Office, ELMER PARKER, Attorney for the Public Defender's Office at Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, ANDREW P. THOMAS, Maricopa County Attorney's Supervisor at Maricopa County Attorney's Office Phoenix and others
Montgomery v. Krull et al
as 2:2010cv02621
Plaintiff:
Donald Anderson Montgomery
Defendant:
Charles Krull, Elmer Parker, Andrew P Thomas and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Irvin Anderson v. D.K. Sisto
as 08-17562
Petitioner - Appellant:
IRVIN DONALD ANDERSON
Respondent - Appellee:
D.K. SISTO, Warden of Solano State Prison
Anderson v. State of California, et al
as 2:2008cv00387
Petitioner:
Irvin Donald Anderson
Respondent:
State of California and Attorney General of the State of California
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Anderson v. State of California, et al
as 1:2008cv00286
Petitioner:
Irvin Donald Anderson
Respondent:
State of California and Attorney General of the State of California
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.
