Cases 11 - 20 of 130
James Johnson, III v. Ron Haynes, et al
as 22-35885
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JAMES L JOHNSON III
Defendant / Appellee:
RON HAYNES, Superintendent, Stafford Creek Corrections Center, ROB SCHREIBER, Correctional Program Manager, Stafford Creek Corrections Center, GINA PENROSE, Associate Superintendent, Stafford Creek Corrections Center and others
Gregory Brown v. Richard Morgan, et al
as 22-35884
Plaintiff / Appellant:
GREGORY TYREE BROWN
Defendant / Appellee:
RICHARD L. MORGAN, BERNARD WARNER, SCOTT FRAKES and others
Scollard v. Stafford Creek Corrections Center et al
as 3:2022cv05851
Plaintiff:
Devon J Scollard
Defendant:
Stafford Creek Corrections Center, Cheryl Strange, Barry DeHaven and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Miguel Trujeque-Magana v. Dan Van Ogle, et al
as 22-35742
Petitioner / Appellant:
MIGUEL A. TRUJEQUE-MAGANA, AKA Jorge Ricardo Gongora-Chi
Respondent / Appellee:
DAN VAN OGLE, RON HAYNES and WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Eton Pope v. Ron Haynes
as 22-35617
Petitioner / Appellant:
ETON MARCEL POPE
Respondent / Appellee:
RON HAYNES
Gallegos v. Haynes
as 3:2022cv05506
Petitioner:
Roy R Gallegos
Respondent:
Ron Haynes
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Gillihan v. Haynes
as 3:2022cv05504
Petitioner:
Travis Gillihan
Respondent:
Ron Haynes
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Johnson v. Haynes et al
as 3:2022cv05492
Plaintiff:
James L Johnson, III
Defendant:
Ron Haynes, Rob Schreiber, Gina Penrose and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jeffrey Baus v. Ron Haynes
as 22-35507
Petitioner / Appellant:
JEFFREY JOSEPH BAUS
Respondent / Appellee:
RON HAYNES, Superintendent
Kozol v. Haynes
as 2:2022cv00760
Petitioner:
Steven Paul Kozol
Respondent:
Ron Haynes
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.
