Cases 1 - 10 of 14
(PC) Motley v. Covello
as 2:2024cv00002
Plaintiff:
Edward Motley
Defendant:
Patrick Covello, Correctional Supervising Cook, Correctional Food Manager and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Roderick Washington v. Alex Villaneaux et al
as 2:2023cv02547
Plaintiff:
Roderick Washington
Defendant:
Alex Villaneaux, Motley, Jackson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Brandon Eugene Hunter v. Richard Acosta et al
as 2:2022cv02465
Plaintiff:
Brandon Eugene Hunter
Defendant:
Richard Acosta, Mike Nelson, Jamie Espinoza and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Motley v. State of California
as 4:2020cv05361
Defendant:
Jim Robertson, A. Neilson, D. Blackburn and others
Plaintiff:
Ernest Motley
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Merriman v. Lizarraga et al
as 2:2017cv01701
Plaintiff:
Dominique Merriman
Defendant:
J. Lizarraga, James Telander, Worrell and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Motley v. Unknown
as 2:2016cv00059
Petitioner:
Ernest E. Motley
Respondent:
Unknown
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Charles Boyd et al v. County of Riverside et al
as 5:2014cv00336
Defendant:
Access Securepak, Alverez, Amador and others
Plaintiff:
Charles Boyd, John Brown, Robert Castro and others
Blythe, Indio, RPDC, Smith, SWBC:
Riverside County Jail System
Motley v. State of California et al
as 4:2010cv05639
Plaintiff:
Edward Eugene Motley
Defendant:
State of California, Santa Clara Superior Court, Sixth District Court of Appeal and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Motley v. Cate
as 2:2009cv01525
Petitioner:
Marcellus Motley
Respondent:
Mathew Cate
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Motley v. Smith et al
as 2:2008cv01423
Plaintiff:
Edward Motley
Defendant:
J. Smith, D. Peddicord, Beasley and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
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.
