Cases 1 - 10 of 52
Chanh Trinh et al v. Brian Birkholz et al
as 2:2023cv04521
Plaintiff:
Chanh V. Trinh, Brian E. Sawyers, Dennis McPherson and others
Defendant:
Brian Birkholz, Bureau of Prisons, Law Office of Manatt, Phelps, and Phillips, LLP and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Phelps v. Matteson
as 3:2023cv02586
Petitioner:
Brewster D. Phelps
Respondent:
Gigi Matteson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
(PC) Phelps v. Perez et al
as 1:2022cv01406
Plaintiff:
Paul Phelps
Defendant:
Manuel Perez, CPL Townsend, Bettis and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
(PC) Robinson v. Acuna et al
as 2:2022cv01629
Plaintiff:
Javaughn K. Robinson
Defendant:
Alexander Acuna, Ty Jones and Mason Phelps
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Robinson v. Acuna et al
as 4:2022cv04934
Plaintiff:
Javaughn Keanukawpono Robinson
Defendant:
Alexander Acuna, Ty Jones and Mason Phelps
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
(PC) Hendrix v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al
as 2:2022cv01319
Plaintiff:
Marcell T. Hendrix
Defendant:
California Dept. of Corr. and Rehab, Hensel Phelps Const, DOES 1 through 50 and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Phelps v. Peery
as 3:2022cv01729
Petitioner:
Brewster Denyveous Phelps
Respondent:
Susan Peery
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
(PC) Phelps v. Perez et al
as 1:2021cv01108
Plaintiff:
Paul Phelps
Defendant:
Manuel Perez, Townsend and Bettes
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Robert Chucku White v. SW Phelps
as 2:2021cv04002
Respondent:
S W Phelps
Petitioner:
Robert Chucku White
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Mark A. Phelps v. Warden
as 2:2021cv02285
Respondent:
Warden
Petitioner:
Mark A. Phelps
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
