Cases 71 - 80 of 164
Cornejo v. Woodford et al
as 2:2010cv00654
Petitioner:
Efrain Cornejo
Respondent:
Jeanne Woodford and M Martel
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Wynn v. Cate et al
as 2:2010cv00546
Plaintiff:
Thomas Paul Wynn
Defendant:
M. Cate, J. Tilton, M. Martel and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Stephenson v. Martel et al
as 2:2010cv00238
Plaintiff:
Robert E. Stephenson
Defendant:
M. Martel, M. Cate, N. Grannis and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Johnson v. Martel
as 2:2010cv00209
Petitioner:
Bruce Ellis Johnson
Respondent:
M. Martel
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Johnson v. Martel
as 2:2010cv00178
Petitioner:
Bruce Ellis Johnson
Respondent:
M. Martel
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Beard v. Martel
as 2:2009cv03508
Petitioner:
Michael William Beard
Respondent:
M. Martel
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Bardo v. Martel et al
as 2:2009cv03479
Plaintiff:
Robert J. Bardo
Defendant:
M. Martel, M Lockhart, S Butcher and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jennings v. Martell
as 2:2009cv03438
Petitioner:
Matthew G. Jennings
Respondent:
M Martell
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Douglas v. Martel, et al
as 2:2009cv03411
Plaintiff:
Bryan Anthony Douglas
Defendant:
M. Martel, Sultanian and Heatley
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Tufono v. California Department of Corrections Rehabilitation Mule Creek State Prison et al
as 2:2009cv03372
Plaintiff:
Arvello L. Tufono
Defendant:
California Department of Corrections Rehabilitation Mule Creek State Prison, M. Martel, G R Wilson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
