Cases 41 - 50 of 64
Lomax v. Canlas et al
as 3:2010cv02226
Plaintiff:
Peter Romero Lomax
Defendant:
Canlas, Whitehead, Farinas and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Christopher Jenkins v. R. Donovan, et al
as 10-56448
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CHRISTOPHER LEE JENKINS
Defendant - Appellee:
R. J. DONOVAN, REID, A. R. PETERSON and others
Paul Jimyoung Choo et al v. The United States of America et al
as 8:2010cv01071
Plaintiff:
Mary H Choo and Paul Jimyoung Choo
Defendant:
DOE 1, DOES, Lizanne Gierczak and others
Gregory Haynes v. City of San Francisco, et al
as 10-16327
Plaintiff - Appellant:
GREGORY MELVIN HAYNES
Defendant - Appellee:
ANDREW BRAUN, ESTER CHOO, ROBERT DYNES and others
Peter Lomax v. Canlas, et al
as 10-55892
Plaintiff - Appellant:
PETER ROMERO LOMAX
Defendant - Appellee:
CANLAS, Medical Doctor, WHITEHEAD, Registered Nurse, FARINAS, Medical Doctor and others
Lopez v. CDCR State Prison, Richard J. Donovan et al
as 3:2010cv01131
Plaintiff:
Alfredo Lopez
Defendant:
CDCR State Prison, Richard J. Donovan, Cathe Fransdal, Susan Pasha and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Legaspy v. Ives et al
as 3:2009cv02851
Petitioner:
Miguel Legaspy
Respondent:
Ives, Neotti, Sylva and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Cheryl Cotterill v. City and County of San Francis, et al
as 09-17647
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CHERYL COTTERILL
Defendant - Appellee:
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, MATHEW MASON, HUGH HALL and others
Gonzales v. Choo et al
as 3:2009cv01776
Plaintiff:
James Gonzales
Defendant:
Choo, DOE and DOE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
United States Of America, Ex Rel et al v. Trendtec Inc., et al
as 2:2005cv00081
Defendant:
Stephan Bagboudarian, Does 1-10 Inclusive, Jan Dyke and others
Plaintiff:
Choo H. Jung and United States of America
Cause Of Action: 31 U.S.C. § 3729 False Claims 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.
