Cases 21 - 30 of 762
Doe #5 v. State of California, et al.
as 1:2023cv01226
Plaintiff:
Jane Doe #5
Defendant:
State of California, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), Officer Greg Rodriguez and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Doe #4 v. State of California, et al.
as 1:2023cv01174
Plaintiff:
Jane Doe #4
Defendant:
State of California, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), Officer Greg Rodriguez and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Lara v. Pfeiffer
as 1:2023at00662
Petitioner:
Jose Luis Lara
Respondent:
Acting Warden Christian Pfeiffer
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Anthony James Medrano v. Kevin Hixton
as 2:2023cv06431
Petitioner:
Anthony James Medrano
Respondent:
Acting Warden Kevin Hixton
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Phillips v. Jones
as 3:2023cv03875
Petitioner:
Michael Phillips and Michael J. Phillips
Respondent:
Acting Warden Gena Jones
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Burke v. Colbert
as 23-1644
Petitioner / Appellant:
BRENT ANDREW BURKE
Respondent / Appellee:
D COLBERT, Acting Warden
Darryl Dunsmore v. Gena Jones, et al
as 23-55677
Petitioner / Appellant:
DARRYL LEE DUNSMORE
Respondent / Appellee:
GENA JONES, Acting Warden at the California Health Care Facility and ROB BONTA
Smith v. Cueva
as 5:2023cv03833
Petitioner:
Donte Marquee Smith
Respondent:
Acting Warden Daniel Cueva
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Eddie Evans v. Kelly Santoro
as 23-55630
Petitioner / Appellant:
EDDIE LEE EVANS
Respondent / Appellee:
KELLY SANTORO, Acting Warden
Erick Silva-Suarez v. Kelly Santoro
as 23-55627
Petitioner / Appellant:
ERICK SILVA-SUAREZ
Respondent / Appellee:
KELLY SANTORO, Acting Warden
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.
