Cases 1 - 10 of 71
(PC) O'Brien v. CDC, et al
as 2:2023cv01112
Plaintiff:
Kory O'Brien
Defendant:
California Department of Corrections, California Medical Facility, D Hurtado and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
(HC) Morales v. Warden at FCI Mendota
as 1:2022cv01592
Petitioner:
Vidal Licea Morales
Respondent:
Warden at FCI Mendota
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Mario Ponce v. Brian Cates, et al
as 22-56168
Petitioner / Appellant:
MARIO VIDAL PONCE
Respondent / Appellee:
BRIAN CATES, Warden and KATHLEEN ALLISON, Secretary CDCR
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2022cv01207
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
(PC) Cordova v. Hurtado et al
as 2:2022cv01296
Plaintiff:
Manuel Cardova and Manuel Cordova
Defendant:
D. Hurtado, M. Vidales, N. Ikeebu and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Rogelio Santillan v. Estela Derr, et al
as 22-15992
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ROGELIO VIDAL SANTILLAN
Defendant / Appellee:
ESTELA DERR and NATHAN KWON, Dr.
Santillan v. Derr et al
as 1:2022cv00196
Plaintiff:
Rogelio Vidal Santillan
Defendant:
Estela Derr and Dr. Nathan Kwon
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Mario Vidal Ponce v. Brian Cates et al
as 5:2022cv00364
Petitioner:
CDCR, Ponce Vidal Mario and Mario Vidal Ponce
Respondent:
Brian Cates and Kathleen Allison
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2021cv01489
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(PC) Singleton v. Cuevas et al
as 2:2021cv01873
Plaintiff:
Kelvin Singleton and Kelvin X. Singleton
Defendant:
D. Cuevas, C. Snelling, J. Garry and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
