Cases 21 - 30 of 45
Howard Young v. Derral Adam
as 11-70682
Petitioner:
HOWARD ALLEN YOUNG
Respondent:
DERRAL G. ADAMS, Warden
-SH Deandre Maurice Howard v. Derral G Adams
as 2:2007cv02680
Respondent:
Derral G Adams
Petitioner:
Deandre Maurice Howard
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Edward Portillo v. USDC-CALA
as 10-73911
:
In re: EDWARD PORTILLO
Petitioner:
EDWARD PORTILLO
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES
Real Party In Interest:
SUSAN HUBBARD, Director of Adult California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation, DERRAL G. ADAMS, Warden and RICHARD SUBIA, Director CDCR
Kent Kafatia v. USDC-CALA
as 10-73795
:
In re: KENT WESLEY KAFATIA
Petitioner:
KENT WESLEY KAFATIA
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES
Real Party In Interest:
DERRAL G. ADAMS, Warden
Toromi Washington v. Derral Adam
as 10-73351
Petitioner:
TOROMI R. WASHINGTON
Respondent:
DERRAL G. ADAMS, Warden
Demetrius Brashear v. Derral Adam
as 10-73240
Petitioner:
DEMETRIUS KING BRASHEAR
Respondent:
DERRAL G. ADAMS, Warden
Butler v. Adams, et al
as 2:2004cv01049
Petitioner:
Steven Allen Butler
Respondent:
Derral G. Adams and Attorney General for the State of California
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Morales Hernandez vs. Adams
as 1:2008cv00254
Petitioner:
Angel Morales Hernandez
Respondent:
Derral G. Adams
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Manuel Corona Cisneros v. Derral G Adams
as 8:2008cv01097
Respondent:
Derral G Adams
Petitioner:
Manuel Corona Cisneros
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Johnny Valdez Briones v. Derral G. Adams
as 8:2010cv00076
Respondent:
Derral G Adams
Petitioner:
Johnny Valdez Briones
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.
