Cases 11 - 20 of 29
Ramirez v. Lewis
as 3:2011cv01436
Petitioner:
Jose Raul Ramirez
Respondent:
Gail Lewis
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Darrell Castleberry, et al v. Gail Lewis
as 5:2003cv00624
Petitioner:
Darrell Castleberry
Respondent:
Gail Lewis
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Antonio C W Cavitt v. James Yates
as 2:2003cv09171
Petitioner:
Antonio Carlos William Cavitt
Respondent:
Gail Lewis
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Fowler v. Lewis
as 5:2002cv03834
Petitioner:
Geoffrey Nelson Fowler
Respondent:
Gail Lewis
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Ramey v. Lewis
as 1:1998cv06047
Petitioner:
Johnney Ramey
Respondent:
Gail Lewis
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
MacCarlie v. Lewis
as 2:2000cv01830
Petitioner:
Bernard Leroy MacCarlie
Respondent:
Gail Lewis
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Gutzman v. California Department of Corrections et al
as 2:2008cv02824
Plaintiff:
Thomas Lee Gutzman
Defendant:
California Department of Corrections, Gail Lewis, James Yates and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Gutzman v. California Department of Corrections et al
as 1:2008cv01917
Plaintiff:
Thomas Lee Gutzman
Defendant:
California Department of Corrections, Gail Lewis, James Yates and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Brad Tarrell Conway v. Debra Dexter, Warden
as 2:2000cv07350
Petitioner:
Brad Tarrell Conway
Respondent:
Debra Dexter and Gail Lewis
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Abdulla v. Yates
as 1:2008cv00551
Defendant:
J. Yates, James Tilton, Gail Lewis and others
Plaintiff:
Hanif Salahuddin Abdulla
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act
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.
