Cases 21 - 30 of 30
David Andrews v. J. Aurelio, et al
as 11-17497
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DAVID RAYMOND ANDREWS
Defendant - Appellee:
J. AURELIO, Correction Counselor, D. MELTON, Correction Counselor, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and others
Andrews v. Federal Bureau of Investigation
as 1:2011cv01659
Plaintiff:
David Raymond Andrews
Defendant:
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Andrews v. Aurelio et al
as 5:2011cv02526
Plaintiff:
David Raymond Andrews
Defendant:
J. Aurelio, D. Melton, S. C. Walch and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Andrews v. Aurelio et al
as 1:2011cv00770
Plaintiff:
David Raymond Andrews
Defendant:
J. Aurelio, D. Melton, S. C. Walch and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Andrews v. Warden of PBSP et al
as 1:2010cv01379
Petitioner:
David Raymond Andrews
Respondent:
Warden of PBSP and Edmund Brown, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
David Andrews v. Robert Horel
as 10-72113
Petitioner:
DAVID RAYMOND ANDREWS
Respondent:
ROBERT A. HOREL, Warden
Andrews v. Evert et al
as 3:2009cv05858
Plaintiff:
David Raymond Andrews
Defendant:
J. Evert and California Department of Corrections
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
David Rose v. Matthew Cate
as 09-56446
Petitioner - Appellant:
DAVID RAYMOND ROSE
Respondent - Appellee:
MATTHEW CATE, Secretary CDCR
David Andrews v. M. Whitman, et al
as 09-55625
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DAVID RAYMOND ANDREWS
Defendant - Appellee:
M. C. WHITMAN, Corrections Counselor, G. J. JANDA, Chief Deputy Warden, M. E. BOURLAND, Chief Deputy Warden and others
Aetna Life Insurance Company v. Estate of David Raymond Woods et al
as 2:2007cv00562
Plaintiff:
Aetna Life Insurance Company and Aetna Life Insurance Company
Defendant:
Estate of David Raymond Woods, Lee Ann E Woods and Cynthia Meulken
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
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.
