Cases 171 - 180 of 26,470
Taylor v. Broomfield et al
as 3:2024cv02820
Plaintiff:
Tracy Taylor
Defendant:
Ron Broomfield, J. Moeckly and C. Schuyler
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Elghembri v. Cook et al
as 3:2024cv02770
Plaintiff:
Ahmed Mohammad Elghembri
Defendant:
Aaron Cook and Alison Pachynski
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Elghembriu v. Doe
as 3:2024cv02768
Plaintiff:
Ahmed Mohammad Elghembriu
Defendant:
Teacher Jane Doe
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Garcia Nava v. Lundy
as 3:2024cv02808
Petitioner:
Juan L. Garcia Nava
Respondent:
Warden Leanna Lundy
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Pugh v. Arredondo et al
as 3:2024cv01890
Plaintiff:
Darryl Pugh
Defendant:
S. Arredondo, Aceves, N. Cardenas and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Lusk v. Santa Rita Jail et al
as 5:2024cv02103
Plaintiff:
William Lusk, III
Defendant:
Santa Rita Jail, County of Alameda and Yesina Sanchez
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Lynch v. Mowery et al
as 4:2024cv02136
Plaintiff:
Antwyone Lynch
Defendant:
M. Mowery and A. Kuster
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Bonilla v. People of the State of California
as 4:2024cv02183
Petitioner:
Steven Wayne Bonilla
Respondent:
People of the State of California
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2024cv02710
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Elghembri v. California Dept. of Correction & Rehabilitation et al
as 3:2024cv02769
Plaintiff:
Ahmed Mohamed Elghembri
Defendant:
California Dept. of Correction & Rehabilitation and Ronald Broomfield
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.
