Cases 61 - 70 of 37,488
Bruce Koklich et al v. Gavin Newsom et al
as 5:2024cv00721
Plaintiff:
Bruce Koklich and Lawrence Remsen
Defendant:
Gavin C. Newsom, Patricia Guerrero, Kathleen Allison and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 8:2024cv00746
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act
Darryl D. McGhee v. Linda Lykins
as 2:2024cv02782
Petitioner:
Darryl D. McGhee
Respondent:
Linda Lykins
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Brandon Che Lee v. Unknown Defendant
as 2:2024cv02798
Plaintiff:
Brandon Che Lee
Defendant:
Unknown Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Carlos I. Correa Miramontes v. Cheryl M. Davis
as 5:2024cv00724
Petitioner:
Carlos I Correa Miramontes
Respondent:
Cheryl M. Davis, Patrick J. Lechleither, Alejandro Mayorkas and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv02716
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv02717
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv02721
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act
Michael Ray Armijo v. Edward Borla
as 8:2024cv00719
Petitioner:
Michael Ray Armijo
Respondent:
Edward Borla
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Alonzo Vernon v. Warden
as 5:2024cv00694
Petitioner:
Alonzo Vernon
Respondent:
Warden
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
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.
