Cases 11 - 20 of 37
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2022cv07498
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2022cv06570
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2022cv05125
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2022cv05074
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2021cv10030
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Baldwin v. Contra Costa County Superior Court
as 3:2020cv07568
Respondent:
Contra Costa County Superior Court
Petitioner:
Maurice D. Baldwin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Michael Wilson v. Mount Diablo Unified School, et al
as 20-16674
Defendant / Appellee:
CHRISTINE L. WILBURN, SEAN JAMES BIAS, STEPHANIE R.C. KANG and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MICHAEL GEARY WILSON
Adams v. Contra Costa County Superior Court
as 3:2020cv00473
Petitioner:
Henry Desean Adams
Respondent:
Contra Costa County Superior Court
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Mario Torres v. Mike Hansen, et al
as 19-16899
Defendant:
ELIZABETH HARRIGAN, CITY OF CONCORD, OFFICE OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS and others
Defendant / Appellee:
DANIEL SMITH, MIKE HANSEN and CONCORD POLICE DEPARTMENT
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MARIO TORRES
Edward Tidwell v. Carrington Holding Company, LL, et al
as 17-16748
Plaintiff - Appellant:
EDWARD C. TIDWELL
Defendant - Appellee:
CARRINGTON HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, CARRINGTON REAL ESTATE SERVICES (US), LLC, CARRINGTON REAL ESTATE SERVICES (CA) INC. and others
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.
