Cases 31 - 40 of 60
Joseph Cristiano v. Edmund Brown, Jr., et al
as 17-56299
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JOSEPH A. CRISTIANO
Defendant - Appellee:
EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr., Governor of California, SCOTT KERNAN, CDCR Director, JEFFREY BEARD, Former CDCR Director and others
Jesus Aleman v. CDCR Director
as 16-16617
Petitioner - Appellant:
JESUS ALEMAN
Respondent - Appellee:
CDCR DIRECTOR
Morris v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al
as 2:2016cv00781
Plaintiff:
Timothy Morris
Defendant:
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, J. Lewis, Roxanne Sanders and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
McQueen v. Brown et al
as 2:2015cv01450
Defendant:
CDCR Director, J. Lewis and Edmund Brown
Plaintiff:
Lamar McQueen
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Barger v. CDCR Director et al
as 1:2015cv00306
Petitioner:
Gary Dale Barger
Respondent:
CDCR Director and Bakersfield Police Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Barger v. CDCR Director et al
as 3:2015cv00830
Petitioner:
Gary Dale Barger
Respondent:
CDCR Director and Bakersfield P.D.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Hans Reiser v. Matthew Cates, et al
as 14-16778
Plaintiff - Appellant:
HANS REISER
Defendant - Appellee:
MATTHEW CATES, CDCR Director, CSER, Counselor, D. THOMASON, CDCR at MCSP and others
Hans Reiser v. Matthew Cates, et al
as 14-16459
Plaintiff - Appellant:
HANS REISER
Defendant - Appellee:
MATTHEW CATES, CDCR Director, CSER, Counselor, D. THOMASON, CDCR at MCSP and others
Hans Reiser v. Matthew Cates, et al
as 14-16202
Plaintiff - Appellant:
HANS REISER
Defendant - Appellee:
MATTHEW CATES, CDCR Director, CSER, Counselor, D. THOMASON, CDCR at MCSP and others
Rickey Williams v. E. Valenzuela, et al
as 14-55402
Plaintiff - Appellant:
RICKEY WILLIAMS
Defendant - Appellee:
E. VALENZUELA, Warden, KAMALA D. HARRIS, Attorney General, MATTHEW CATE, CDCR Secretary and others
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.
