Cases 41 - 50 of 88
Daniel Lucas v. Steve Moore, et al
as 10-16646
Petitioner - Appellant:
DANIEL LUCAS
Respondent - Appellee:
STEVE MOORE, BOARD OF PRISON HEARINGS and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Terrence O'Sullivan v. Steve Moore
as 10-15700
Petitioner - Appellant:
TERRENCE O'SULLIVAN
Respondent - Appellee:
STEVE MOORE
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2010at00152
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans with Disabilities Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2010cv00309
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans with Disabilities Act
Barragan-Mendoza v. Moore
as 2:2009cv03570
Petitioner:
Martin Barragan-Mendoza
Respondent:
Steve Moore
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Brooks et al v. County of San Joaquin et al
as 2:2009at01949
Plaintiff:
Brianna M Brooks, Danessa J Brooks, Brenda Ann Clow-Brooks and others
Defendant:
County of San Joaquin, Steve Moore and Does 1-25, inclusive
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Brooks et al v. County of San Joaquin et al
as 2:2009cv03343
Plaintiff:
Brianna M Brooks, Danessa J Brooks, Brenda Ann Clow-Brooks and others
Defendant:
Kevin Casanelli, County of San Joaquin, Ralph Huggins and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Barragan-Mendoza v. Schwarzenegger et al
as 2:2009cv03292
Petitioner:
Martin Barragan-Mendoza
Respondent:
Schwarzenegger and Steve Moore
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2009cv01434
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Ashford v. Moore
as 2:2009cv02703
Petitioner:
William Ashford
Respondent:
Steve Moore
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
