Cases 41 - 50 of 85
Love v. Kernan et al
as 5:2017cv01241
Plaintiff:
Bobby C. Love
Defendant:
Scott Kernan, J. Clark Kelso , Shawn Hatton and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Day v. California Department of Corrections et al
as 5:2017cv00840
Plaintiff:
Michael Sterling Day
Defendant:
California Department of Corrections, S. Posson, Z. Seyal and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Smith v. Ahmed et al
as 5:2016cv06586
Defendant:
Z. Ahmed , D. Bright , S. Posson and others
Plaintiff:
Scott W. Smith
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Venegas v. Branch et al
as 5:2016cv06000
Plaintiff:
Sergio Venegas
Defendant:
Roselle Branch and D. Bright
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Saenz v. Branch et al
as 3:2016cv05959
Plaintiff:
Robert Gonzales Saenz
Defendant:
R. Branch and D. Brights
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Manuel Arreola v. Randy Grounds et al
as 3:2016cv03133
Plaintiff:
Manuel Arreola
Defendant:
Randy Grounds , D. Bright , J. Moon and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hadden v. Kernan et al
as 3:2016cv02686
Plaintiff:
Michael Kenneth Hadden
Defendant:
Steve Kernan, W.L. Muniz, R.T.C. Grounds and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Michael Bradley v. Homer Bryson, et al
as 16-12376
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MICHAEL PAUL BRADLEY
Defendant - Appellee:
HOMER BRYSON, Georgia Department of Corrections, WILLIAM A. PRIOR, JR., Chief Judge, Morgan County, Georgia and FREDRIC D. BRIGHT, District Attorney, Baldwin County
Hadden v. Kernan et al
as 1:2016cv00639
Plaintiff:
Michael Kenneth Hadden
Defendant:
Steve Kernan, W.L. Muniz, R.T.C. Grounds and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Miller v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) et al
as 5:2016cv02431
Defendant:
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) , Z. Ahmed , D. Bright and others
Plaintiff:
Charles Anderson Miller
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
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.
