Cases 1 - 10 of 20
Alden Pauline v. Public Safety, et al
as 22-15256
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ALDEN PAULINE
Defendant / Appellee:
PUBLIC SAFETY, Staff, HCF ADDMEN STAFF, STATE DEPT. OF HEALTH and others
Pauline v. Public Safety Staff et al
as 1:2021cv00510
Plaintiff:
Alden Pauline
Defendant:
Public Safety Staff, HCF Addmen Staff and State Dept. of Health
Interested Party:
Shelley Harrington and Laurie Nadamoto
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Alden Pauline v. Director Department of Health, et al
as 19-17492
Defendant:
HARRINGTON, Warden, SQUERA, Warden, COSSEY, ACO and others
Defendant / Appellee:
KAWAMOTO, COS, STRONG, Captain, MURRAY, Administrative Law Judge, Sgt. and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ALDEN PAULINE, AKA Alden Pauline, Jr.
Pauline, Jr. v. Director DOJ, et al
as 1:2019cv00167
Defendant:
Director DOJ, Director Health Department, Director Espinda and others
Plaintiff:
Alden Pauline, Jr.
Interested Party:
Laurie Nadamoto
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Pauline v. Hoomana et al
as 1:2018cv00224
Plaintiff:
Alden Pauline
Defendant:
Hoomana, Hall, Koria and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Pauline vs. Sheriff Department, et al
as 1:2016cv00643
Plaintiff:
Alden Pauline
Defendant:
Sheriff Department and Public Safety Staff and Medical Staff
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Pauline v. Seabright et al
as 1:2015cv00074
Plaintiff:
Alden Pauline
Defendant:
J. Michael Seabright, Mark A. Inciong, Tommy Kong and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
In Re: Alden Pauline's Motion for Hearing Regarding Safety
as 1:2015mc00085
Petitioner:
Alden Pauline, Jr.
In Re: Alden Pauline's Motion for Hearing Regarding Safety
as 1:2015cv00084
Petitioner:
Alden Pauline, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Pauline v. Espinda et al
as 1:2013cv00612
Plaintiff:
Alden Pauline
Defendant:
Espinda, Kori, Kenny and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
