Cases 11 - 20 of 21
Miguel Angel Gomez v. J. Macdonald et al
as 5:2013cv01367
Respondent:
Attorney General of the state of California, Delinda Harman and J MacDonald
Petitioner:
Miguel Angel Gomez
Miscellaneou:
Anthony David Urbano
Gomez v. Macdonald et al
as 3:2013cv01679
Petitioner:
Miguel Angel Gomez
Miscellaneous_party:
Anthony David Urbano
Respondent:
J. Macdonald , Delinda Harman and Attorney General of the State of California
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Christian Rodriguez, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al
as 13-55467
Plaintiff - Appellee:
CHRISTIAN RODRIGUEZ, individually and a class representatives and ALBERTO CAZAREZ, individually and a class representatives
Defendant - Appellant:
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CARMEN A. TRUTANICH, CHARLES BECK and others
Christian Rodriguez v. City of Los Angeles, et al
as 13-55423
Plaintiff:
CHRISTIAN RODRIGUEZ
Intervenor - Appellant:
LOS ANGELES TIMES COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
Defendant - Appellee:
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CARMEN A. TRUTANICH, CHARLES BECK and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2013cv00196
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Miguel Gomez v. Eric Holder, Jr.
as 12-73826
Petitioner:
MIGUEL ANGEL GOMEZ
Respondent:
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General
Christian Rodriguez et al v. City of Los Angeles et al
as 2:2011cv01135
Defendant:
Charles Beck, City of Los Angeles, Does and others
Plaintiff:
Alberto Cazarez and Christian Rodriguez
USA v. Miguel Gomez-Hernandez
as 10-10441
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
MIGUEL ANGEL GOMEZ-HERNANDEZ
Miguel Angel Gomez v. Mike McDonald
as 2:2010cv01922
Petitioner:
Miguel Angel Gomez
Respondent:
Mike McDonald
Miguel Gomez Ortega v. Eric H. Holder Jr.
as 08-74216
Petitioner:
MIGUEL ANGEL GOMEZ ORTEGA
Respondent:
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General
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.
