Cases 31 - 40 of 64
Bonilla v. Alameda County Civil Conspiracy Members et al
as 3:2018cv01035
Plaintiff:
Steven Wayne Bonilla
Defendant:
Alameda County Civil Conspiracy Members, Vince Chhabria, Claudia Wilken and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Bonilla v. Gonzalez Rogers, et al.
as 3:2018cv00822
Plaintiff:
Steven Wayne Bonilla
Defendant:
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers and Claudia Wilken
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Daniel Dydzak v. USA, et al
as 17-17401
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DANIEL DAVID DYDZAK
Defendant - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, MATTHEW C. ROGERS, AKA Matt Rogers and others
Daniel Dydzak v. USDC-CASF
as 17-72962
:
In re: DANIEL DAVID DYDZAK
Petitioner:
DANIEL DAVID DYDZAK
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO
Real Party In Interest:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, MATTHEW C. ROGERS, AKA Matt Rogers and others
Bonilla v. Rogers et al
as 3:2017cv03721
Plaintiff:
Steven Wayne Bonilla
Defendant:
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers and Claudia Wilken
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2017cv03442
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2017cv03345
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Bonilla v. Horner et al
as 3:2017cv00277
Plaintiff:
Steven Wayne Bonilla
Defendant:
Jeffrey Horner, Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers and Claudia Wilken
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Henderson v. U.S. District Court et al
as 3:2016cv03972
Plaintiff:
Philip W. Henderson
Defendant:
U.S. District Court and Claudia Wilken
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Bonilla v. Wilken et al
as 3:2016cv03308
Plaintiff:
Steven Wayne Bonilla
Defendant:
Claudia Wilken and Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
