Cases 21 - 30 of 88
Anglin v. Hudgins et al
as 1:2018cv00853
Petitioner:
Lee Anglin
Respondent:
Richard Hudgins, Janet Perdue and U.S. Probation Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Profitt v. Howe et al
as 3:2017cv07136
Petitioner:
Marvin Profitt
Respondent:
Rob Howe, Lake County Probation Department and Xavier Becerra
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Robert Couturier v. The Presiding Judge Of LA Sup, et al
as 17-56376
Petitioner - Appellant:
ROBERT STEPHEN COUTURIER
Respondent - Appellee:
THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT
Defendant - Appellee:
THE CHIEF OFFICERS OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT
Pearson v. U.S. Marshal et al
as 6:2017cv00036
Petitioner:
Theron Pearson
Respondent:
U.S. Marshal Service and Probation Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Zambrella v. Ward et al
as 6:2017cv00233
Petitioner:
Taurus Zambrella
Respondent:
Ward, FBOP and U.S. Probation Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Ronald S. Kaczmarek v. Los Angeles County Probation Department
as 5:2017cv00832
Petitioner:
Ronald S. Kaczmarek
Defendant:
Los Angeles County Probation Department
Long v. Lebanon County Probation Department et al
as 3:2017cv00231
Petitioner:
Michele Long
Respondent:
Lebanon County Probation Department and Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
David McDonald v. Michael Daly
as 16-16893
Petitioner - Appellant:
DAVID MCDONALD
Respondent - Appellee:
MICHAEL DALY, Chief Probation Officer, County of Marin probation Department
Stanley Clarke v. State of California, et al
as 16-16564
Petitioner - Appellant:
STANLEY BRADFORD CLARKE
Respondent - Appellee:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA and MADERA COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT
Painter v. United States Probation Department
as 2:2016cv00467
Plaintiff:
Larry Blaine Painter
Defendant:
United States Probation Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
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.
