Cases 1 - 10 of 16
Pratt v. Kernan et al
as 5:2017cv04375
Plaintiff:
Michael Joseph Pratt
Defendant:
Scott Kernan, K. Kumar, Lawrence S. Gamboa and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Lawrence Hash v. Charles Lee, et al
as 14-16727
Plaintiff - Appellant:
LAWRENCE GEORGE HASH
Defendant - Appellee:
CHARLES DUDLEY LEE, Health Care Manager, SVSP, J. G. ARCEO, C. BLACKSTONE and others
Righetti v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al
as 5:2011cv02717
Plaintiff:
Gerald Righetti
Defendant:
Anthony Hedgpeth, Michael Evans, Charles Dudley Lee and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Lorenzo Fosselman v. Randolph Gibbs, et al
as 11-15682
Plaintiff - Appellant:
LORENZO FOSSELMAN, AKA Lorenzo Fosselman, Jr.
Defendant - Appellee:
RANDOLPH GIBBS, M.D., ALLISON BRAGER, C. KATES, LVN and others
Fred Jackson v. Robert Bowman, et al
as 09-17366
Plaintiff - Appellant:
FRED JAY JACKSON
Defendant - Appellee:
ROBERT BOWMAN, CHARLES DUDLEY LEE and NAVNEET ADYA
Murillo v. Lee et al
as 3:2009cv02227
Petitioner:
Ramon Murillo
Respondent:
Charles Dudley Lee and Mark Santa Romana
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Barrett v. Cate et al
as 1:2009cv01741
Plaintiff:
Robert E Barrett
Defendant:
M. Cate, I. Grillo, Robert Bowman and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Fleming v. Schwarzenegger et al
as 4:2008cv05011
Plaintiff:
Gary Lee Fleming
Defendant:
A. Schwarzenegger, G. A. Neotti, M. Muniz and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Martin v. Ponder et al
as 5:2008cv04459
Plaintiff:
Ronnie S. Martin
Defendant:
Kenneth Ponder, C. Kates and Charles Dudley Lee
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Hash v. Cate et al
as 3:2008cv03729
Plaintiff:
Lawrence George Hash
Defendant:
Matthew Cate, M. S. Evans, L. E. Scribner and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
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.
