Cases 1 - 10 of 149
MacDonald v. Shinn et al
as 2:2022cv01866
Petitioner:
Ian Alexander MacDonald
Respondent:
David Shinn and Mark Brnovich
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
(HC) MacDonald v. Lynch
as 2:2022cv00742
Petitioner:
Devonta J. MacDonald
Respondent:
Jeff Lynch
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
(HC) MacDonald v. Lynch
as 2:2022cv00477
Petitioner:
Devonta MacDonald and Devonta J. MacDonald
Respondent:
Jeff Lynch
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
MacDonald v. Maricopa, County of et al
as 2:2022cv00046
Plaintiff:
Shannon MacDonald and Bradley Stoltman
Defendant:
Maricopa, County of, Pinal, County of, Wexford Health Sources Incorporated and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
(PC) Jenkins v. MacDonald et al
as 2:2021cv01555
Plaintiff:
Markeith Jenkins
Defendant:
MacDonald, Vang and Buckley
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
MacDonald et al v. Brown et al
as 6:2020cv00931
Plaintiff:
Scott Thomas Novascone, Bryan Alexander MacDonald and Thomas L. Retallick
Defendant:
Clint Riley, Kate Brown, Clifton G. Harold and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Murphy v. Bureau of Prisons et al
as 3:2020cv00764
Defendant:
Bureau of Prisons, Officer Pennington and Officer MacDonald
Plaintiff:
Thomas Robert Murphy
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Nathan Hill v. Orange County et al
as 8:2019cv01905
Defendant:
Superior Court of Orange County, Fredrick F. Mumm, Orange County and others
Plaintiff:
Nathan Hill
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Nathan Hill v. Orange County et al
as 2:2019cv07388
Defendant:
Superior Court of Orange County, Heckathorn, Orange County and others
Plaintiff:
Nathan Hill
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jared Alger v. Jim MacDonald
as 18-16339
Petitioner - Appellant:
JARED ALGER
Respondent - Appellee:
JIM MACDONALD, Warden
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.
