Cases 21 - 28 of 28
Haro v. Swarthout
as 2:2010cv00410
Petitioner:
Randolph Haro
Respondent:
Gary Swarthout
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Janis, et al v. USA
as 1:2004cv05812
Plaintiff:
Gust Marion Janis
Defendant:
USA , Greggs, Robert Haro and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Haros v. USA
as 1:2009cv02169
Petitioner:
Octavio Haros
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Ramirez v. Rios et al
as 1:2008cv01604
Petitioner:
Cutberto Haro Ramirez
Respondent:
Hector Rios, Hector Rios, Hector Rios and others
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
Haro v. Hartley
as 1:2008cv01524
Petitioner:
Onesimo Haro
Respondent:
J. Hartley
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Ramirez v. United States of America et al
as 1:2007cv01490
Petitioner:
Cutberto Haro Ramirez
Respondent:
United States of America, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Federal Prison Camp, Atwater and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
United States of America for the Use and Benefit of Felix Haro Construction, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company et al
as 1:2007at00492
Plaintiff:
United States of America for the Use and Benefit of Felix Haro Construction, Inc.
Defendant:
St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, UPA Group, Inc., WATTS CONSTRUCTORS and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract
United States of America for the Use and Benefit of Felix Haro Construction, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company et al
as 1:2007cv01396
Plaintiff:
United States of America for the Use and Benefit of Felix Haro Construction, Inc.
Defendant:
St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, UPA Group, Inc., Watts Constructors and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract
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.
