Cases 201 - 210 of 464
Ray, et al v. Memphis Bonding Company, Incorporated, et al
as 2:2018cv02144
Plaintiff:
Glenn Ray and Loris Shepard
Defendant:
Memphis Bonding Company, Incorporated, George A. Hitt and Tracy Van Pittman
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962
Sharp v. Memphis Bonding Company, Incorporated, et al
as 2:2018cv02143
Plaintiff:
Kevin Sharp
Defendant:
Memphis Bonding Company, Incorporated, George A. Hitt and Tracy Van Pittman
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962
Bailey v. Memphis Bonding Company, Incorporated et al
as 2:2018cv02115
Defendant:
Memphis Bonding Company, Incorporated, George A. Hitt and Tracy Van Pittman
Plaintiff:
Robert Bailey
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2018cv02112
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962
USA v. Randy Pittman
as 18-10203
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
RANDY DEWAYNE PITTMAN
Jeremy Ruff v. B. Pittman et al
as 5:2017cv02227
Defendant:
A. Garibay and B. Pittman
Plaintiff:
Jeremy Ruff
Christopher Lancaster v. USDC-CARIV
as 17-73003
:
In re: CHRISTOPHER LANCASTER
Petitioner:
CHRISTOPHER LANCASTER
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE
Real Party In Interest:
UNKNOWN MALE NURSE, individual & official capacity, PRICE, individual, PRICE, Nurse-official capacity and others
ALLEN et al v. BROWN et al
as 1:2017cv01951
Plaintiff:
ROBERT E. ALLEN , ROBERT TOWNS , STEVEN SMALLWOOD and others
Defendant:
JERRY BROWN, BRIAN HAWKINS and DAVID J. SHULKIN
Cause Of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case
Christopher Lancaster v. Warden Richard B. Ives et al
as 5:2017cv00927
Respondent:
Acting Warden Unknown Associate, Case Manager Coordinater Ms. Ragosa, Duty Officer Unknown and others
Plaintiff:
Christopher Lancaster
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.
