Cases 41 - 50 of 475
Rogelio Nava v. Mental Health Courthouse, County of Los Angeles
as 2:2021cv07413
Plaintiff:
Rogelio Nava
Defendant:
Mental Health Courthouse, County of Los Angeles
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ernesto Nava v. Kates
as 2:2021cv07182
Petitioner:
Ernesto Nava
Respondent:
Kates
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Nava-Ambriz v. United States of America
as 3:2021cv05555
Plaintiff:
Bernabe Nava-Ambriz
Defendant:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Bobby Aceves v. City of Long Beach et al
as 2:2021cv04625
Defendant:
City of Long Beach, John Anthony Moran, Officer John Anthony Moran and others
Plaintiff:
Bobby Aceves
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Nava-Lomas v. Garland
as 21-51
Petitioner:
ALVARO NAVA-LOMAS
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Griselda Nava v. ReNew Health Group, LLC, et al
as 21-55454
Defendant / Appellant:
CRYSTAL SOLORZANO, an individual, PARKWEST REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC, a California corporation, RENEW HEALTH GROUP, LLC, a California corporation and others
Plaintiff / Appellee:
GRISELDA NAVA, individually and as successor and heir of Florentina Lopez, deceased
(HC) Nava v. On Habeas Corpus
as 1:2021cv00594
Respondent:
On Habeas Corpus
Petitioner:
Luis Alberto Alarcon Nava
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Roberto Garcia Nava v. Robert Wilkinson
as 21-70323
Petitioner:
ROBERTO ALEJANDRO GARCIA NAVA
Respondent:
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General
Gutierrez et al v. State of California, California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation et al
as 3:2021cv00180
Plaintiff:
Ramiro Gutierrez, Sr., Maria Nava and Ramiro Gutierrez
Defendant:
Centinela State Prison, Raymond Madden, State of California, California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
(PC) Hammler v. Allison et al
as 1:2021cv00122
Defendant:
T. Sanders, Ralph Diaz, D. Nava and others
Plaintiff:
Allen Hammler
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.
