Cases 101 - 110 of 126
Glover, et al v. Cate, et al
as 2:2010cv00430
Plaintiff:
Ronald Dean Glover and Dennis Walker
Defendant:
Matthew Cate, Kathleen Dickinson, Barnes and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Gonzales v. Dickinson
as 2:2010cv00426
Petitioner:
Edward Stephen Gonzales
Respondent:
Kathleen Dickinson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Nguon v. Dickinson
as 2:2010cv00295
Petitioner:
Hung Duong Nguon
Respondent:
Kathleen Dickinson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Foote v. Cate, et al
as 2:2010cv00217
Petitioner:
Michael D. Foote
Respondent:
Matthew Cate, Kathleen Dickinson and California Community Release Board
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
deRutte v. Dickinson
as 2:2010cv00030
Respondent:
Kathleen Dickinson
Petitioner:
Sean deRutte
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Disney v. Dickinson
as 3:2009cv05933
Petitioner:
John Lee Disney
Respondent:
Kathleen Dickinson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Rhines v. Dickinson
as 3:2009cv05790
Plaintiff:
Michael Rhines
Respondent:
Kathleen Dickinson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Nguon v. Dickinson
as 2:2009cv03229
Petitioner:
Hung Duong Nguon
Respondent:
Kathleen Dickinson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
West v. Dickinson
as 2:2009cv03147
Petitioner:
Mack A West, Jr.
Respondent:
Kathleen Dickinson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Norsworthy v. Cate, et al
as 2:2009cv02989
Plaintiff:
Jeffrey Bryan Norsworthy
Defendant:
Mathew Cate, Mike Knowles, Kathleen Dickinson 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.
