Cases 11 - 20 of 870
David Peasley v. M. Spearman, et al
as 23-15177
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DAVID SCOTT PEASLEY
Defendant / Appellee:
M. ELIOT SPEARMAN, Warden, D. BRIGHT, Chief Medical Officer, ZAHED AHMED, Doctor and others
Paul Johnson v. Thuddy, et al
as 23-15167
Plaintiff / Appellant:
PAUL DAVID JOHNSON
Defendant / Appellee:
THUDDY, MD., CMO, F. KREITLER, M.D., L. W. ROHLFING, MD and others
(PC) Spearman v. Hillberg et al
as 2:2023cv00093
Plaintiff:
Reginald E. Spearman
Defendant:
Ronald W. Hillberg, Mark E. Prescott, N. Daniels and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
(PC) Ripple v. CDCR et al
as 1:2022cv01102
Plaintiff:
Lorraine Ripple
Defendant:
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Kathleen Allison, Howard E. Moseley and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
(PC)Hampton v. Alkire et al
as 2:2022cv01418
Plaintiff:
Gary G. Hampton, Jr.
Defendant:
Alkire, Carrillo, Spearman and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Paul Johnson v. Thuddy, et al
as 22-16116
Plaintiff / Appellant:
PAUL DAVID JOHNSON
Defendant / Appellee:
THUDDY, M.D., CMO, F. KREITLER, M.D., L. W. ROHLFING, M.D. and others
Anete Rosario et al v. Ford Motor Company
as 2:2022cv05035
Plaintiff:
Anete Rosario, Deanna Rose, Robin Ross and others
Defendant:
Ford Motor Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Fraud
(HC) Saldana v. Spearman
as 1:2022cv00140
Petitioner:
Roberto Saldana, Jr
Respondent:
M.E. Spearman
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Donel Poston v. M. Spearman
as 22-15055
Petitioner / Appellant:
DONEL POSTON
Respondent / Appellee:
M. ELIOT SPEARMAN, Warden
Paul Johnson v. Joseph Chudy, et al
as 22-15050
Plaintiff / Appellant:
PAUL DAVID JOHNSON
Defendant / Appellee:
JOSEPH CHUDY, M.D., THUDDY, M.D., CMO, F. KREITLER, M.D. and others
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.
