Cases 21 - 30 of 32
Charles Boyd et al v. County of Riverside et al
as 5:2014cv00336
Defendant:
Access Securepak, Alverez, Amador and others
Plaintiff:
Charles Boyd, John Brown, Robert Castro and others
Blythe, Indio, RPDC, Smith, SWBC:
Riverside County Jail System
Warren Webster Alston v. Carolyn Townsend et al
as 5:2013cv00639
Plaintiff:
Warren Webster Alston
Defendant:
B & D Associates, Lee Clark, Razeem Cooper and others
Branson S. Ward v. Sgt. Rich
as 5:2008cv01021
Defendant:
Santiago Godinez, Goodrich, Craig Harris and others
Plaintiff:
Branson S Ward
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Nathan Diggs v. Board of Corrections, et al
as 13-35017
Plaintiff - Appellant:
NATHAN DANIEL DIGGS
Defendant - Appellee:
BOARD OF CORRECTIONS, ROBIN SANDY, CAROLING MELINIE and others
Thomas Baccus, Jr. v. Board of Corrections, et al
as 12-35394
Plaintiff - Appellant:
THOMAS BACCUS, Jr.
Defendant - Appellee:
BOARD OF CORRECTIONS, ROBIN SANDY, CAROLING MELINIE and others
Dunham v. Motorola Mobility, Inc.
as 3:2012cv05107
Plaintiff:
Vernal Dunham
Defendant:
Motorola Mobility, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Nathan Diggs v. Board of Corrections, et al
as 11-36076
Plaintiff - Appellant:
NATHAN DANIEL DIGGS
Defendant - Appellee:
BOARD OF CORRECTIONS, ROBIN SANDY, CAROLING MELINIE and others
Diggs v. Board of Corrections et al
as 1:2011cv00353
Plaintiff:
Nathan Daniel Diggs
Defendant:
Board of Corrections, Robin Sandy, Caroling Melinie and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Baccus v. Board of Corrections et al
as 1:2011cv00351
Plaintiff:
Thomas Baccus, Jr
Defendant:
Board of Corrections, Robin Sandy, Caroling Melinie and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Beeson v. Board of Corrections et al
as 1:2011cv00352
Plaintiff:
Milo Beeson
Defendant:
Board of Corrections, Robin Sandy, Caroling Melinie 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.
