Cases 21 - 28 of 28
Jones et al v. Robertson et al
as 4:2011cv00223
Plaintiff:
Alberta Rose Jones and Ryan Garrett Jones
Defendant:
Jim Robertson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Aracely Zamora-Garcia, et al v. Marc Moore, et al
as 10-41274
Plaintiff - Appellee:
ARACELY ZAMORA-GARCIA, JUANA ZAMORA, in their own name and right, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, MANUEL SANDOVAL-HERRERA and others
Defendant - Appellant:
MARC MOORE, District Director for Interior Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security and MICHAEL CHERTOFF, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Busby v. Unknown
as 1:2010cv01406
Plaintiff:
Alberta Busby
Defendant:
Unknown
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Mangus v. Dauphin County Prison et al
as 1:2009cv01881
Plaintiff:
Alberta Mangus
Defendant:
Dauphin County Prison, Dominick DeRose and Correctional Officers & Medical
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jones et al v. People, State of California
as 5:2009cv03860
Petitioner:
Alberta Rose Jones and Ryan Garrett Jones
Respondent:
People, State of California
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Montgomery v. Beck et al
as 5:2009ct03029
Plaintiff:
Gerald Young Montgomery
Defendant:
Theodis Beck, James E. Langston, Anthony G. Perry and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Cosgrove v. Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services et al
as 1:2007cv00378
Petitioner:
Charles P Cosgrove
Respondent:
Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services, Donna Whiteman, Michael Vanlandingham and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
JENKINS v. HENDERSON et al
as 1:2007cv00379
Plaintiff:
ELIJAH JENKINS
Defendant:
CATHE C. HENDERSON, DAVID CHURCHHILL, ALBERTA M. MORRISON and others
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.
