Cases 31 - 40 of 49
Harold Morales v. Rosanne Campbell
as 08-16294
Petitioner - Appellant:
HAROLD MORALES
Respondent - Appellee:
ROSANNE CAMPBELL, Warden
Real-party-in-interest - Appellee:
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Bryan Monkres v. Rosanne Campbell, et al
as 08-16011
Petitioner - Appellant:
BRYAN RANDALL MONKRES
Respondent - Appellee:
ROSANNE CAMPBELL, Warden, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and JEANNE S. WOODFORD, Director CDC
Robert Cruz v. Rosanne Campbell
as 08-15916
Petitioner - Appellant:
ROBERT JOHN CRUZ
Respondent - Appellee:
ROSANNE CAMPBELL, Warden, Mule Creek State Prison
Payman Borhan v. Rosanne Campbell
as 08-55471
Petitioner - Appellant:
PAYMAN BORHAN
Respondent - Appellee:
ROSANNE CAMPBELL, Warden Mule Creek State Prison
Bryan Monkres v. Rosanne Campbell, et al
as 08-15593
Petitioner - Appellant:
BRYAN RANDALL MONKRES
Respondent - Appellee:
ROSANNE CAMPBELL, Warden, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and JEANNE S. WOODFORD, Director CDC
Hernandez v. Martel
as 08-55240
Petitioner - Appellant:
JESSE DALE HERNANDEZ
Respondent - Appellee:
ROSANNE CAMPBELL and MICHAEL MARTEL
Mena v. Campbell, et al
as 08-55202
Petitioner - Appellant:
SALVADOR MENA
Respondent - Appellee:
ROSANNE CAMPBELL and EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, Jr., Warden
Williams v. Campbell et al
as 1:2008cv00325
Petitioner:
Joel Williams
Respondent:
Rosanne Campbell and Attorney General for the State of California
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Williams v. Campbell et al
as 2:2008cv00179
Petitioner:
Joel Williams
Respondent:
Rosanne Campbell and Attorney General for the State of California
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hobson v. Campbel
as 3:2007cv05832
Petitioner:
Timothy Hobson
Respondent:
Rosanne Campbel
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.
