Cases 1 - 10 of 86
Aguire Ramos v. Perkins
as 2:2024cv00429
Petitioner:
Victor Ramos and Victor Manuel Aguire Ramos
Respondent:
Jeffrey Perkins
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Bogdanov v. Perkins
as 3:2024cv05999
Petitioner:
David Y Bogdanov
Respondent:
Jefferey Perkins
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Owolabi v. Perkins
as 3:2024cv05979
Respondent:
Jefferey Perkins
Petitioner:
Julius Ayomola Owolabi
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Matiya v. Perkins
as 3:2024cv05892
Respondent:
Jefferey Perkins
Petitioner:
Jafaka Meno Matiya and Anthony Person
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Andritz v. Perkins
as 4:2024cv05123
Respondent:
Jefferey Perkins
Petitioner:
Daniel Andritz
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hatt, Jr et al v. Perkins
as 2:2024cv01591
Petitioner:
George Donald Hatt, Jr
Respondent:
Jeffrey Perkins
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Timm et al v. Seattle Children's Hospital et al
as 2:2024cv01570
Defendant:
Gregory Kinney, Jonathan Perkins, Seattle Children's Hospital and others
Plaintiff:
Reed Wiman, Periphery Neurophysiology and Donald Timm
Cause Of Action: 31 U.S.C. § 3729 False Claims Act
Rager v. Perkins
as 2:2024cv00330
Respondent:
Jefferey Perkins
Petitioner:
Michael R Rager
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Boardman v. Perkins
as 3:2024cv05777
Respondent:
Jefferey Perkins
Petitioner:
Thomas Russell Boardman
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Quintero v. Perkins
as 4:2024cv05114
Respondent:
Jeffery Perkins
Petitioner:
Jose Manuel Quintero
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
