Cases 1 - 10 of 15
Huynh v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) et al
as 3:2021cv04039
Defendant:
P. Sullivan, B. Avina, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and others
Plaintiff:
Tri Huu Huynh
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Benke v. Biter et al
as 4:2020cv09401
Defendant:
Maldonado, L. Bautista, B. Beltran and others
Plaintiff:
Daniel L. Benke
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Huynh v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (CDCR) et al
as 3:2020cv03034
Defendant:
R Binkele, Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) Compliance Manager, W L Muniz and others
Plaintiff:
Tri Huu Huynh
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(HC) Knight v. Board of Parole Hearings
as 2:2020cv00196
Petitioner:
Clarence Vinson Knight
Respondent:
Board of Parole Hearings
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Tom Love Vinson v. Raymond Madden
as 2:2018cv06783
Petitioner:
Tom Love Vinson
Respondent:
Warden Raymond Madden and Raymond Madden
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Ricky R. Vinson v. C. E. Ducart
as 2:2016cv06477
Respondent:
C. E. Ducart
Petitioner:
Ricky R. Vinson
Smith v. Hedgpeth et al
as 5:2016cv01269
Plaintiff:
Gregory Andre Smith
Defendant:
R. Machuca, Jr., M. Zornes, M. Roennmann and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Knight v. Nettles et al
as 5:2015cv00219
Plaintiff:
Clarence Vinson Knight
Defendant:
J. Nettles, B. Williams and Anthony William
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Coleman v. California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al
as 4:2014cv05508
Plaintiff:
Dwight A. Coleman
Defendant:
California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Jeffrey Beard, Yates and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Smith v. Hedgpeth et al
as 4:2013cv01052
Plaintiff:
Gregory Andre Smith
Defendant:
Anthony Hedgpeth, L. Trexler, M. Roennmann 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.