Cases 1 - 10 of 76
Harper v. Marquez, et al.
as 25-595
Plaintiff:
DANIEL HARPER
Defendant:
G. MARQUEZ, C/O, CSP Sacramento, D. BAKER, C/O, CSP Sacramento and DAVID CARABALLO, Lt., CSP Sacramento
(PC) Lopez v. Luhan et al
as 1:2024cv00544
Plaintiff:
Elijah Lopez
Defendant:
Luhan, Chavez, Pohovich and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
(PC) Lopez v. Luhan et al
as 2:2024cv01321
Plaintiff:
Elijah Lopez
Defendant:
Luhan, Chavez, Pohovich and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Richardson v. Diaz, et al.
as 24-1247
Plaintiff:
PATRICK L. RICHARDSON
Defendant:
RALPH DIAZ, Secretary and Director of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, individual and official capacity, JOSEPH BICK, Director of Correctional Health Care Services, individual and official capacity, JENNIFER BARRETTO, Director of Correctional Health Care Policy and Administration, individual and official capacity and others
(PC) Petillo v. CSP Sacramento et al
as 2:2023cv02286
Plaintiff:
Dennis Petillo, Jr.
Defendant:
CSP Sacramento, Jeff Lynch, Kross and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
(PC) Epps v. Archie et al
as 2:2023cv00135
Plaintiff:
Robert Epps
Defendant:
Archie and CSP-Sacramento
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
(PC)Roberts v. CSP-Sacramento et al
as 2:2022cv01831
Plaintiff:
David Roberts and David Nathaniel Roberts
Defendant:
CSP-Sacramento, Caruso and Acuna
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
(PC) Robinson v. Catlin et al
as 2:2022cv01585
Plaintiff:
Javaughn K. Robinson
Defendant:
Catlin, C/O Ayala, Simmons and others
Respondent:
C/O Bell
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Robinson v. Catlin et al
as 4:2022cv04933
Plaintiff:
Javaughn K. Robinson
Defendant:
Catlin, Ayala, Simmons and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
