Cases 41 - 50 of 132
Ruben Onesimo Sena v. John Marshall
as 2:2008cv08545
Respondent:
John Marshall
Petitioner:
Ruben Onesimo Sena
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Dennis Douglas Bye v. John Marshal et al
as 2:2008cv02849
Respondent:
Attorney General of the State of California and John Marshal
Petitioner:
Dennis Douglas Bye
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Marcos Florez v. John Marshall
as 11-70256
Petitioner:
MARCOS FLOREZ
Respondent:
JOHN MARSHALL, Warden
Barry Jameson v. John Marshall, et al
as 11-55048
Plaintiff - Appellant:
BARRY SIMON JAMESON
Defendant - Appellee:
JOHN MARSHALL, individual and official capacity, Warden of California Mens Colony, D. ENGLER, individual and official capacity, Correctional Counselor II, T. L. COOK, individual and official capacity, Captain of guards at CMC East and others
Francisco Castro Lopez v. John Marshall et al
as 2:2008cv04254
Respondent:
Attorney General CA and John Marshall
Petitioner:
Francisco Castro Lopez
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Theodore O'Dell Wilson v. Schwarzenegger et al
as 2:2008cv05268
Respondent:
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Does, G. D. Gross and others
Petitioner:
Theodore O'Dell Wilson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Michael Johnson v. USDC-CASF
as 10-73271
:
In re: MICHAEL TYRONE JOHNSON
Petitioner:
MICHAEL TYRONE JOHNSON
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO
Real Party In Interest:
JOHN MARSHALL, Warden
Darnell Washington v. John Marshall
as 10-73122
Petitioner:
DARNELL WASHINGTON
Respondent:
JOHN MARSHALL
Eastman v. Marshall
as 2:2004cv04525
Petitioner:
Richard Eastman
Respondent:
John Marshall
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.
