Cases 71 - 80 of 130
Mendez v. Arizona, State of et al
as 2:2013cv00231
Plaintiff:
Frank M Mendez
Defendant:
Arizona, State of, Unknown Pontias and Unknown Roman
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Alvarez v. Ryan et al
as 2:2013cv00172
Petitioner:
Carlos Mendez Alvarez
Respondent:
Charles L Ryan and Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Mendez v. Arizona, State of
as 4:2013cv00051
Petitioner:
Eddie Angel Mendez
Respondent:
Arizona, State of
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Rendon v. Unknown Parties et al
as 4:2013cv00033
Plaintiff:
Kevin Rendon
Defendant:
Unknown Parties, Unknown Winn, Unknown Longfellow and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Ramirez-Mendez v. USA
as 2:2013cv00026
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
Carlos Ramirez-Mendez
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
Ayala v. Apker et al
as 4:2012cv00770
Plaintiff:
Miguel David Ayala
Defendant:
Craig Apker, Christopher Lamb, Unknown Party and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Rushing v. United States of America et al
as 4:2012cv00722
Plaintiff:
Garrett M Rushing
Defendant:
United States of America, Unknown Heard, Unknown Mendez and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Brooks v. Apker et al
as 4:2012cv00664
Plaintiff:
Charles Aaron Brooks
Defendant:
Craig Apker, Unknown Mendez, Unknown Palameres and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Mendez v. Astrue
as 4:2012cv00603
Plaintiff:
Jose Tomas Mendez
Defendant:
Michael J Astrue
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
J & J Sports Productions Incorporated v. Arcko
as 2:2012cv01587
Plaintiff:
J & J Sports Productions Incorporated
Defendant:
Antonio Mendez Arcko
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 0605
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.
