Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Randle v. Contra Costa Cnty. Super. Ct.
as 3:2023cv05799
Plaintiff:
Jason Thomas and Ramello D. Randle
Defendant:
Contra Costa County Superior Court of Martinez, Judge Horimoto, Judge Tharesa Canepa and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Parsons v. Six Appellate District California Court of Appeal et al
as 5:2022cv09049
Plaintiff:
Jason Thomas Parsons
Defendant:
Six Appellate District California Court of Appeal, Mark D. Greenberg and Patricia Bamattre-Manoukian
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Parsons v. Cantil-Sakauye
as 5:2022cv04882
Plaintiff:
Jason Thomas Parsons
Defendant:
Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Parsons v. San Jose Police Department et al
as 3:2022cv04691
Plaintiff:
Jason Thomas Parsons
Defendant:
San Jose Police Department, Santa Clara County, William Todd Wellman and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Pope v. Garrett
as 3:2022cv00904
Petitioner:
Jason Thomas Pope
Respondent:
Pat Garrett
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Edwards v. Butte County Jail et al
as 2:2017cv00965
Plaintiff:
Jason Thomas Edwards
Defendant:
Butte County Jail and Kory Honea
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Thomas v. Brock et al
as 5:2016cv02057
Plaintiff:
Jason Thomas
Defendant:
D. Brock, S. Owen, Caraway and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2014cv00223
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Jason Thomas v. Executive Director ASH
as 2:2012cv06698
Respondent:
Executive Director ASH
Petitioner:
Jason Thomas
Jason Guinn v. William Sullivan
as 08-56138
Petitioner - Appellant:
JASON THOMAS GUINN
Respondent - Appellee:
WILLIAM SULLIVAN
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.
