Cases 1 - 9 of 9
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00160
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Charles Miller v. M. Adonis, et al
as 17-16176
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CHARLES ANDERSON MILLER
Defendant - Appellee:
M. ADONIS, MELISSA GRIFFITH, A. GUTIERREZ and others
Miller v. Adonis, et al.
as 1:2012cv00353
Defendant:
M. Adonis , Melissa Griffith , A. Gutierrez and others
Plaintiff:
Charles A. Miller
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Bruce Koklich v. James Yates, et al
as 11-17886
Plaintiff - Appellant:
BRUCE KOKLICH
Defendant - Appellee:
JAMES A. YATES, Warden, P. MENDOZA, Correctional Officer, CHAMNESS, Correctional Officer and others
Koklich v. Yates et al
as 1:2011cv01507
Defendant:
James A. Yates, P. Mendoza, Chamness and others
Plaintiff:
Bruce Koklich
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Koklich v. California Department of Corrections & Rebiliatation et al
as 1:2011at00503
Plaintiff:
Bruce Koklich
Defendant:
California Department of Corrections & Rebiliatation , James A. Yates , P. Mendoza and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Koklich v. California Department of Corrections & Rebiliatation et al
as 1:2011cv01403
Plaintiff:
Bruce Koklich
Defendant:
California Department of Corrections & Rebiliatation , James A. Yates , P. Mendoza and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Miller v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al
as 1:2010cv01428
Plaintiff:
Charles A. Miller
Defendant:
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, A. Walker , Z. Ahmed and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Miller v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al
as 1:2010at00581
Plaintiff:
Charles A. Miller
Defendant:
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, A. Walker , Z. Ahmed and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
