Cases 31 - 40 of 4,525
Manuel Navar Diaz v. Martin O'Malley
as 2:2024cv03412
Plaintiff:
Manuel Navar Diaz
Defendant:
Martin J. OMalley
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
Wells v. Diaz et al
as 3:2024cv02488
Plaintiff:
Bruce Carol Wells, JR.
Defendant:
Correctional Officer R. Diaz and California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Diaz-Godinez, et al. v. Miller, et al.
as 24-2641
Plaintiff:
ALEXANDER DIAZ-GODINEZ and RITA GODINEZ ALVAREZ
Defendant:
LOREN K. MILLER, ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, UR M. JADDOU and others
Kramer v. Broomfield et al
as 4:2024cv02417
Plaintiff:
Daniel A. Kramer
Defendant:
Ron Broomfield, Ralph Diaz, J. Clark Kelso and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jimenez-Guzman, et al. v. Garland
as 24-2534
Petitioner:
MARTHA ELIZABETH JIMENEZ-GUZMAN and SAMUEL ANDRES DIAZ-JIMENEZ
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Bernardino v. Diaz, et al.
as 24-2536
Plaintiff:
CLAUDIO BERNARDINO, JR.
Defendant:
Secretary of CDCR RALPH DIAZ, Warden TAMMY FOSS, THOMAS, (Captain) and others
Diaz v. Moore, et al.
as 24-2512
Plaintiff:
D. DIAZ
Defendant:
MICHEL REY MOORE, RICHARD ALARCON, RICHARD ALATORRE and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv01164
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act
Burton v. Cricket Wireless et al
as 3:2024cv00167
Plaintiff:
Precious Burton
Defendant:
Cricket Wireless, AT & T, Theodore Diaz Torress and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Cuper Development LLC et al v. City of Cudahy et al
as 2:2024cv02833
Plaintiff:
Cuper Development LLC, Go Cudahy LLC, Davina LLC and others
Defendant:
City of Cudahy, Alfonso Noyola, Elizabeth Alcantar and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
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.
