Cases 11 - 19 of 19
James v. CDCR et al
as 5:2010cv04247
Plaintiff:
Michael James
Defendant:
CDCR, UC Regents, University of California, Berkeley and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
James v. CDCR et al
as 3:2010cv04247
Plaintiff:
Michael James
Defendant:
CDCR, UC Regents, University of California, Berkeley and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Endres v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation et al
as 3:2010cv03924
Plaintiff:
William M. Endres
Defendant:
California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, California Prison Health Care Receivership Corporation, J. Clark Kelso and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Forrest v. Cullen
as 3:2010cv02954
Petitioner:
Anthony Forrest
Respondent:
Vincent Cullen
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Liebb v. Cullen
as 4:2010cv02377
Petitioner:
Stephen Liebb
Respondent:
Vincent Cullen
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Ashmus v. Ayers
as 3:1993cv00594
Petitioner:
Troy Adam Ashmus
Miscellaneou:
California Appellate Project
Respondent:
Robert L. Ayers, Jr. , Robert K. Wong and Vincent Cullen
Plaintiff:
Robert K. Wong
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution
Zambrano v. Cullen
as 5:2009cv04917
Petitioner:
Enrique Zambrano
Respondent:
Robert K. Wong and Vincent Cullen
Miscellaneou:
California Appellate Project, Habeas Corpus Resource Center and Michael David Laurence
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Dunkle v. Ayers
as 4:2006cv04115
Petitioner:
Jon Scott Dunkle
Respondent:
Robert L. Ayers and Vincent Cullen
Miscellaneou:
California Appellate Project and Habeas Corpus Resource Center
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Rowland v. Martel, et al.
as 3:1994cv03037
Petitioner:
Guy Kevin Rowland
Respondent:
John N. Maddock, Vincent Cullen and Michael Martel
Miscellaneou:
Habeas Corpus Resource Center and California Appellate Project
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
