Cases 21 - 30 of 2,379
Darryl D. McGhee v. California Dept of Corrections et al
as 5:2024cv01021
Plaintiff:
Darryl D. McGhee
Defendant:
California Dept of Corrections, John Jane Doe and Linda Lykins
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
TerVeer v. Cuevas + the People et al
as 3:2024cv00847
Petitioner:
Justin TerVeer
Respondent:
Cuevas + the People and John Doe
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
(PC) Fisher v. Doe
as 1:2024cv00560
Plaintiff:
Darrel R Fisher
Defendant:
J Doe
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Elghembri v. Doe, Dentist et al
as 3:2024cv02771
Plaintiff:
Ahmed Mohamed Elghembri
Defendant:
Jane Doe, Dentist, John Doe, Dentist and Theodore Ng
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Elghembriu v. Doe
as 3:2024cv02768
Plaintiff:
Ahmed Mohammad Elghembriu
Defendant:
Teacher Jane Doe
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Christopher Lipsey Jr. v. Lancaster State Prison Warden Lundy et al
as 2:2024cv03716
Plaintiff:
Christopher Lipsey, Jr
Defendant:
Lancaster State Prison Warden Lundy, Captain Z. Soisuvarn, Lieutenant A. Martinez and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Roderick Washington et al v. Fern et al
as 2:2024cv03723
Plaintiff:
Roderick Washington
Defendant:
Shen Jay Fern, Jackie Lacey, Jose I. Sandoval and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
N.A. v. U.S.A.
as 4:2024cv02561
Plaintiff:
N.A.
Defendant:
U.S.A. and Does 1-20
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Sanchez v. Doe
as 3:2024cv00770
Plaintiff:
Josue Israel Sanchez
Defendant:
Doe
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Das v. Medvin, et al
as 3:2024cv02477
Plaintiff:
Damodar Chandra Das
Defendant:
John Doe, Newman and Dr. Medvin
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.
