Cases 11 - 20 of 233
Calhoun v. Garland et al
as 6:2023cv00184
Plaintiff:
Joseph Patrick Calhoun
Defendant:
Terry Garland, April Lentz, Mike Self and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Self v. Streeter
as 5:2023cv00642
Petitioner:
Johnny Lee Self
Respondent:
Warden William Streeter
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Smith v. Odom et al
as 5:2023cv00020
Plaintiff:
Antron T. Smith
Defendant:
Warden Odom, Warden Cox, Lt. Hattoway and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Self v. Pullen
as 3:2023cv00181
Petitioner:
Darrell Self
Respondent:
T. Pullen
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Self v. Martinez et al
as 2:2023cv00148
Plaintiff:
John Edward Self
Defendant:
Warden Martinez, Officer Courville, R Noel and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Ethan Self v. Mike Paris
as 23-5091
Petitioner / Appellant:
ETHAN ALEXANDER SELF
Respondent / Appellee:
MIKE PARIS, Warden, Morgan County Correctional Complex
Green v. Bradshaw et al
as 4:2022cv01269
Plaintiff:
Gregory Green
Defendant:
Jerry Bradshaw, Jared Self, Amber N Corlis and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Kuhn v. Martinez et al
as 5:2022cv05239
Plaintiff:
Michael Douglas Kuhn
Defendant:
Officer Christopher Martinez, Officer Bilbrey, Corporal Corely and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
John Yablonsky v. CDCR, et al
as 22-56100
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JOHN HENRY YABLONSKY
Defendant / Appellee:
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Entity of the state of California, DANIEL PARAMO, Warden, R.J. Donovan (CDCR), J. ROBLES, R.J. Donovan (CDCR) Librarian and others
Self v. Paris
as 3:2022cv00375
Petitioner:
Ethan Alexander Self
Respondent:
Mike Paris
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.
