Cases 1 - 10 of 33
Samuel Anderson v. People of The State of California
as 2:2018cv01169
Petitioner:
Samuel Anderson
Respondent:
People of The State of California
Samuel Anderson v. Dorothy Swingler, et al
as 17-15952
Plaintiff - Appellant:
SAMUEL ANDERSON
Defendant - Appellee:
DOROTHY SWINGLER, Chief Medical Officer and BONNIE LEE, Chief Physician and Surgeon
Defendant:
T. KIMURA-YIP, Associate Director, California Prison Health Care, J. WALKER, Chief, Office of Third Level Appeals - Health Care, N. WARREN, Chief (Acting) Office of Third Level Appeals - Health Care and others
Samuel Anderson v. Dorothy Swingler, et al
as 17-15831
Plaintiff - Appellee:
SAMUEL ANDERSON
Defendant - Appellant:
DOROTHY SWINGLER, Chief Medical Officer and BONNIE LEE, Chief Physician and Surgeon
Defendant:
T. KIMURA-YIP, Associate Director, California Prison Health Care, J. WALKER, Chief, Office of Third Level Appeals - Health Care, N. WARREN, Chief (Acting) Office of Third Level Appeals - Health Care and others
Anderson v. DIRECTV, LLC
as 2:2014cv01761
Plaintiff:
Samuel Anderson
Defendant:
DIRECTV, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Samuel Anderson v. USDC-SAC
as 13-73444
:
In re: SAMUEL ANDERSON
Petitioner:
SAMUEL ANDERSON
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO
Real Party In Interest:
MATTHEW TATE, M. D. MCDONALD, R. L. GOWER and others
Anderson v. Unknown
as 4:2013cv04278
Petitioner:
Samuel Anderson
Defendant:
Unknown
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Samuel Anderson v. USDC-SAC
as 13-72893
:
In re: SAMUEL ANDERSON
Petitioner:
SAMUEL ANDERSON
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO
Real Party In Interest:
J. CLARK KELSO, Receiver, T. KIMURA-YIP, Associate Director, California Prison Health Care, J. WALKER, Chief, Office of Third Level Appeals - Health Care and others
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.
