Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Koivisto v. Walker et al
as 2:2012cv00772
Plaintiff:
Tauno A Koivisto, III
Defendant:
Jimmy Walker, Sahota, Laura Bebe and others
Cause Of Action: 02 U.S.C. § 437
Hill v. Walker et al
as 2:2010cv00803
Plaintiff:
Benjamin Lee Hill
Defendant:
Jimmy Walker, Rapoport, J. Bal and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Funtanilla v. Kelly, et al
as 2:2002cv01157
Defendant:
Michael Jaffe , Richard Lipon , Russell Ewing and others
Plaintiff:
Gregorio C. Funtanilla, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Tholmer v. Pliler, et al
as 2:2004cv01368
Plaintiff:
Lionell Ernest Tholmer
Defendant:
Cheryl Pliler , T Rosario , G Stratton and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Williams v. Department of Corrections et al
as 2:2008cv02860
Plaintiff:
Patrick Williams
Defendant:
Department of Corrections, N. Grannis, D.C. Kenndy and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hicks v. Walker et al
as 2:2008cv02844
Plaintiff:
Michael J Hicks
Defendant:
Jimmie Walker, Linda Young, Michael Jaffe and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Houk v. Walker et al
as 2:2008cv01100
Petitioner:
Larry N. Houk
Respondent:
Jimmy Walker and Attorney General for the State of California
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Campbell v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation et al
as 2:2008cv00293
Plaintiff:
Maurice C. Campbell
Defendant:
California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Roderick Q. Hickman and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Mullin v. Walker
as 2:2007cv00682
Petitioner:
Earl Ira Mullin
Respondent:
Jimmy Walker
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Ruiz v. Walker, et al
as 2:2007cv00584
Petitioner:
Brandon Ruiz
Respondent:
Jimmy Walker and Edmund G. Brown, Jr.
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.
