Cases 71 - 80 of 1,183,395
Hill v. Medical Staff from Program 1 et al
as 4:2024cv02579
Plaintiff:
Cymeyon V. Hill
Defendant:
Medical Staff from Program 1, Monique and Jenny Clay
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
(HC) Gonsalves v. Superior Court Antelope Valley et al
as 1:2024cv00516
Petitioner:
Anthony David Gonsalves, Jr.
Respondent:
Superior Court Antelope Valley and CDCR
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv03534
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv03536
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Muhammad v. Mason
as 1:2024cv00529
Petitioner:
Walid Abdullah Muhammad, King Walid Abdullah Muhammad and Waliyd Muhammad
Respondent:
Bernadette Mason
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
RUMPH v. DIXON
as 4:2024cv00191
Petitioner:
TAVARES RUMPH
Respondent:
RICKY DIXON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
DAVIS v. FRANKLIN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION et al
as 4:2024cv00190
Plaintiff:
LLOYD ANTHONY DAVIS
Defendant:
FRANKLIN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, REGION 1 PHARMACY and FNU PAWKK
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv21656
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 0551 Administrative Procedure Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv21664
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 0702 Administrative Procedure Act
Augustin, Jose A. v. Lin et al
as 9:2024cv80551
Plaintiff:
Jose Anderson Augustin
Defendant:
Adam Lin and Swigert Anthony
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 State Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
