Cases 91 - 100 of 284
(PC) Davis v. Lynch et al
as 2:2022cv02054
Plaintiff:
Bayard Devell Davis
Defendant:
Jeff Lynch, San Joaquin General Hospital, Diagnostic Radiological Imaging - Elk Grove and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
(PC)Parker v. Lynch et al
as 2:2022cv02015
Plaintiff:
Melvin Parker
Defendant:
Jeff Lynch, M. Burkhart, N. West and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
(PC) Pangborn v. CDCR et al
as 2:2022cv01985
Plaintiff:
David James Pangborn
Defendant:
CDCR, Boulden and Jeff Lynch
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
(PC) Bowers v. California State Prison Sacramento et al
as 2:2022cv01919
Plaintiff:
LaQuinton D Bowers and LaQuinton D. Bowers
Defendant:
California State Prison Sacramento and Jeff Lynch
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Vernon Castle Brown, Jr. v. Jeff Lynch
as 2:2022cv07832
Petitioner:
Vernon Castle Brown, Jr.
Respondent:
Jeff Lynch
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Seales v. Lynch
as 3:2022cv06437
Petitioner:
Troy Seales
Respondent:
Acting Warden Jeff Lynch and Jeff Lynch
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
(PC) Hill v. Qui
as 2:2022cv01821
Plaintiff:
Cymeyon Hill
Defendant:
Suzi Qui, N. R. Smith, Conrad and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Wilson v. lynch
as 5:2022cv06042
Petitioner:
Anthony Roy Wilson
Respondent:
Warden Jeff lynch
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
(HC) Scott v. Lynch
as 2:2022cv01815
Petitioner:
Tiante Dion Scott
Respondent:
Jeff Lynch
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
(PC) Simms v. Lynch
as 2:2022cv01793
Plaintiff:
Robert Lee Simms
Defendant:
Jeff Lynch
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.
