Cases 31 - 40 of 41
Tovar-Mendoza v. Hatch, et al
as 09-2145
Petitioner - Appellant:
CARLOS TOVAR-MENDOZA
Respondent - Appellee:
ANTHONY ROMERO, Director, Regional Correctional Facility, TIMOTHY HATCH, Director, Regional Correctional Facility, ERASMO BRAVO, Warden, Guadalupe Correctional Center and others
Rascon v. Hatch, et al
as 09-2088
Petitioner - Appellant:
JUAN L. RASCON
Respondent - Appellee:
TIMOTHY HATCH, Warden and GARY K. KING, Attorney General for the State of New Mexico
Silva v. Hatch
as 6:2008cv00276
Plaintiff:
Gary D. Silva
Defendant:
Timothy Hatch
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Sedillo v. Hatch, et al
as 08-2015
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JERRY EUGENE SEDILLO
Defendant - Appellee:
TIMOTHY HATCH and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Trujillo v. Hatch et al
as 1:2008cv00012
Plaintiff:
Victor E. Trujillo
Defendant:
Timothy Hatch and Attorney General of the State of New Mexico
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Padilla v. Hatch, et al
as 07-2262
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ROMAN M. PADILLA
Defendant - Appellee:
TIMOTHY HATCH and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Graham v. Hatch
as 07-2246
Petitioner - Appellant:
ANTONIO GRAHAM
Respondent - Appellee:
TIMOTHY HATCH, Warden
Padilla v. Hatch et al
as 6:2007cv00540
Plaintiff:
Ramon M Padilla
Defendant:
Timothy Hatch and Attorney General of the State of New Mexico
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Padilla v. Hatch et al
as 1:2007cv00540
Plaintiff:
Ramon M Padilla
Defendant:
Timothy Hatch and Attorney General of the State of New Mexico
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Cullen v Hatch, et al
as 6:2007cv00514
Plaintiff:
Christopher Cullen
Defendant:
Timothy Hatch and Attorney General of the State of New Mexico
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.
