Cases 31 - 40 of 156,469
Storm v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco
as 24-6775
Real Party In Interest:
ROB BONTA, State Attorney General of the State of California, KATHLEEN ALLISON, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor and others
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO
Petitioner:
DIMITRI Z. STORM
Singh v. Garland
as 24-6781
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Petitioner:
SANDEEP SINGH
Anderson v. Ross, et al.
as 24-6793
Respondent:
RAUL LABRADOR, Attorney General and RUSSELL ROSS
Petitioner:
DEVON JOSEPH ANDERSON
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv03225
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv03227
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Drummond v. Breitenbach et al
as 3:2024cv00504
Respondent:
Warden Breitenbach and The Attorney General of the State of Nevada
Petitioner:
Bradley Drummond
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Dyches v. United States of America et al
as 2:2024cv06359
Defendant:
United States Marshals Service, United States Attorney General, United States of America and others
Plaintiff:
Joseph Dyches
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1346 Tort Claim
Bullock v. Dotson et al
as 2:2024cv00655
Respondent:
Commonwealth Attorney General and Chadwick Dotson
Petitioner:
Timothy Bullock
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jose Zamora-Loja v. Merrick B. Garland
as 24-3260
Petitioner:
Jose David Zamora-Loja
Respondent:
Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 24-3259
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
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.
