Cases 1 - 10 of 90
Johnny Guyton, Jr. v. Cynthia Tampkins
as 22-55248
Petitioner / Appellant:
JOHNNY LEE GUYTON, Jr.
Respondent / Appellee:
CYNTHIA Y. TAMPKINS, Warden
Binh C. Tran v. Cynthia Y. Tampkins et al
as 5:2022cv00167
Plaintiff:
Binh C. Tran
Defendant:
Warden Cynthia Y. Tampkins, Chief Deputy Warden Lavelle Parker, Kerry Oglesby and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 21-55719
Petitioner / Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent / Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Rahman Rashad Rushing v. California Rehabilitation Center et al
as 5:2021cv01004
Defendant:
John Doe, California Rehabilitation Center and Cynthia Y. Tampkins
Plaintiff:
Rahman Rashad Rushing
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ardell McDuffie et al v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al
as 5:2021cv00824
Plaintiff:
Demetrius Rogers, Daniel Cesario Ramirez, Ardell McDuffie and others
Defendant:
CDCR Secretary Ralph Diaz, Warden Cynthia Y. Tampkins, Kerry Oglesby and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal - Civil Rights Act
Norman Brown v. Cynthia Tampkins
as 20-72834
Petitioner:
NORMAN ANTHONY BROWN
Respondent:
CYNTHIA Y. TAMPKINS, Warden
Norman Brown v. Cynthia Tampkins
as 20-72602
Petitioner:
NORMAN ANTHONY BROWN
Respondent:
CYNTHIA Y. TAMPKINS, Warden
Charles Lee, Jr. v. Cynthia Tampkins
as 20-55775
Respondent / Appellee:
CYNTHIA Y. TAMPKINS, Warden
Petitioner / Appellant:
CHARLES JOSEPH LEE, Jr.
Rahman R Rushing v. Cynthia Y. Tampkins et al
as 2:2020cv06513
Plaintiff:
Rahman R Rushing
Defendant:
State of California, Cynthia Y. Tampkins and Mona D. Houston
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Rahman R Rushing v. State of California et al
as 5:2020cv01247
Defendant:
State of California, John Doe CC s, Cynthia Y Tamkins and others
Plaintiff:
Rahman R. Rushing
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.
