Cases 81 - 90 of 158
Fred Arthur Burr Jr. v. Ivan D. Clay
as 5:2009cv01731
Petitioner:
Fred Arthur Burr, Jr
Respondent:
Ivan D Clay
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Tomala v. Davis, et al
as 1:2009cv01600
Plaintiff:
James Thomas Tomala
Defendant:
Troy Davis, W Semsen, Ivan D Clay and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Tomala v. Davis, et al
as 2:2009cv02479
Plaintiff:
James Thomas Tomala
Defendant:
Troy Davis, W Semsen, Ivan D Clay and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Randy Lee Soderstrom v. I D Clay Warden et al
as 8:2009cv00985
Petitioner:
Randy Lee Soderstrom
Respondent:
I D Clay
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Joseph Stancle v. Ivan Clay
as 09-56374
Petitioner - Appellant:
JOSEPH STANCLE
Respondent - Appellee:
IVAN D. CLAY, Warden
Valdivia v. Clay
as 1:2009cv01443
Petitioner:
Moses Valdivia
Respondent:
Ivan D. Clay
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Moses Valdivia v. Ivan D. Clay
as 2:2009cv05678
Petitioner:
Moses Valdivia
Respondent:
Ivan D. Clay
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Type:
Other Statutes
Abner Lister v. Secretary/Director of Californ, et al
as 09-16520
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ABNER HAYNES LISTER
Defendant - Appellee:
SECRETARY/DIRECTOR OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION REHABILITATION, Z. ALLEN and I. D. CLAY, Warden
Ottoniel Munoz v. Ivan D. Clay
as 2:2009cv05209
Petitioner:
Ottoniel Munoz
Respondent:
Ivan D. Clay
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Type:
Prisoner Petitions
Moore v. Bal et al
as 2:2009at01080
Plaintiff:
Jack Samuel Moore
Defendant:
Jasdeep Bal, James Walker, Jack St. Clair and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other 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.
