Cases 61 - 70 of 166
Castlin v. Cate et al
as 1:2012cv02084
Plaintiff:
Aron D. Castlin
Defendant:
M. Cate , D. G. Adams, J. Silveria and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hutchinson v. Brown et al
as 4:2012cv01655
Petitioner:
Keith Monroe Hutchinson
Respondent:
Jerry Brown, M. Cate and R. Grounds
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
McElroy v. Asad et al
as 2:2012cv00763
Plaintiff:
Latwahn McElroy
Defendant:
N Asad, Dor, K Turner and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Franklin v. Flores et al
as 3:2012cv00703
Plaintiff:
Harold V. Franklin
Defendant:
K. Flores, J. E. Coleman, J. Aceves and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ra Uhuru et al v. Cates et al
as 3:2012cv00229
Plaintiff:
El Heru Kweli Ra Uhuru and Ausar Amsukau Raakhu
Defendant:
M. Cates, D. Uribe, Jr. and K. Phillips
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Bravo v. Benitez et al
as 3:2012cv00078
Plaintiff:
Victor J Bravo
Defendant:
R. Benitez , J. Brown, M. Cates and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Richard Torres v. M. Cate, et al
as 11-18054
Plaintiff - Appellant:
RICHARD MARENTES TORRES
Defendant:
M. CATE, Director of the California Department fo Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)
Defendant - Appellee:
K. GETZ, CCI, Pelican Bay State Prison, R. K. WONG, Chief Deputy Warden, High Desert State Prison and T. PEREZ, Chief Deputy Warden, High Desert State Prison
Daniel Bowles v. Bruno Stolc, et al
as 11-57086
Petitioner - Appellant:
DANIEL TREVOR BOWLES, AKA Daniel T. Bowles
Respondent - Appellee:
BRUNO STOLC, Warden
Respondent:
MELISSA LEA, Chief Deputy, Administrator COCF and M. CATE, Secretary CDCR
Levi v. Cate, et al
as 2:2011cv03164
Plaintiff:
Fred Levi
Defendant:
M. Cate, K. Dickinson and J Bick
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Atcherley v. Downing et al
as 2:2011cv02922
Plaintiff:
Wilbur Atcherley
Defendant:
M. Downing, D. Buchanon, Amero and others
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.
