Cases 21 - 30 of 56
Richard Paul Roddy v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al
as 2:2015cv01889
Defendant:
Attorney of Record, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Los Angeles Police Department Hollywood and others
Plaintiff:
Richard Paul Roddy, II
Roddy v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al
as 3:2015cv00418
Plaintiff:
Richard Paul Roddy, II
Defendant:
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Parole Officer of Record Wren, Los Angeles Police Department Hollywood and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Roddy A Guzman v. Scott Frauenheim
as 2:2015cv00437
Respondent:
Scott Frauenheim
Petitioner:
Roddy A Guzman
Judy Kloss et al v. Pfizer Inc. et al
as 2:2014cv09567
Plaintiff:
Debbie Ballinger, Johnny E. Beavers, Mitt Beavers and others
Defendant:
Does, McKesson Corporation and Pfizer Inc.
Guzman v. Frauenheim
as 1:2014cv01799
Petitioner:
Roddy A Guzman
Respondent:
Scott Frauenheim
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Roddy Guzman v. Scott Frauenheim
as 2:2014cv08383
Respondent:
Scott Frauenheim
Petitioner:
Roddy A Guzman
Richard Paul Roddy II v. Sheriff William Gore
as 3:2014cv01848
Petitioner:
Richard Paul Roddy, II
Respondent:
William Gore
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Richard Paul Roddy II v. Sheriff William Gore
as 2:2014cv05989
Respondent:
Sheriff William Gore
Petitioner:
Richard Paul Roddy, II
Richard Paul Roddy II v. California Department of Corrections et al
as 2:2013cv08524
Defendant:
Board of Prison Review, California Department of Adult Parole, California Department of Corrections and others
Plaintiff:
Richard Paul Roddy, II
Richard Roddy II v. California Dept of Corrections et al
as 2:2013cv07390
Defendant:
Board of Prison Review, California Dept of Adult Parole, California Dept of Corrections and others
Plaintiff:
Richard Roddy , II
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.
