Cases 1 - 7 of 7
Arnold Abrera v. Gavin Newsom, et al
as 22-16897
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ARNOLD ABRERA
Defendant / Appellee:
GAVIN NEWSOM, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of California, ROB BONTA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California, ANNE MARIE SCHUBERT, in her official capacity as County of Sacramento District Attorney and others
Mack Lucas, III v. City of Sacramento Police Dept, et al
as 21-15855
Defendant / Appellee:
SACRAMENTO COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE, BRANDON LUNDGREN, Police Officer #970, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MACK LUCAS III
Robert Powell v. County of Sacramento District, et al
as 21-15673
Petitioner / Appellant:
ROBERT EDWARD POWELL
Respondent / Appellee:
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO DISTRICT ATTORNEY and SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
(HC) Powell v. County of Sacramento District Attorney et al
as 2:2020cv00043
Petitioner:
Robert E. Powell and Robert Edward Powell
Respondent:
County of Sacramento District Attorney and Sacramento County Sheriff's Office
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(PS)Katumbusi v. County of Sacramento et al
as 2:2019cv00128
Defendant:
Kathleen Leslie Hrepich, Vander E. Hardy-Porter, Kathleen Leslie Hrepich-Jonas and others
Plaintiff:
Fatima A. Katumbusi
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Lamont Houze v. USDC-SAC
as 12-72456
:
In re: LAMONT A. HOUZE
Petitioner:
LAMONT A. HOUZE
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO
Real Party In Interest:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE, SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR COURT and others
Houze v. State of California, et al
as 2:2012cv01484
Plaintiff:
Lamont A. Houze, II
Defendant:
State of California, County of Sacramento District Attorney Office, Sacramento Superior Court and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
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.
