Cases 61 - 70 of 75
Holt v. Bravo et al
as 1:2010cv00186
Plaintiff:
Jimmy J. Holt
Defendant:
Erasmo Bravo and Gary King
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Garrison v. Attorney General For The State, et al
as 10-2039
Petitioner - Appellant:
LETTICE A. GARRISON
Respondent - Appellee:
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO and ERASMO BRAVO, Warden, Guadalup County Correctional Facility
Duran v. Bravo
as 1:2010cv00160
Petitioner:
Steve Robert Duran
Respondent:
Erasmo Bravo
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jacobs v. Bravo et al
as 1:2010cv00061
Plaintiff:
Shawn L. Jacobs
Defendant:
Erasmo Bravo and Attorney General State of New Mexico
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Trujillo v. Bravo
as 1:2009cv00914
Plaintiff:
Jose A. Trujillo
Defendant:
Erasmo Bravo
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Tovar-Mendoza v. Hatch, et al
as 09-2145
Petitioner - Appellant:
CARLOS TOVAR-MENDOZA
Respondent - Appellee:
ANTHONY ROMERO, Director, Regional Correctional Facility, TIMOTHY HATCH, Director, Regional Correctional Facility, ERASMO BRAVO, Warden, Guadalupe Correctional Center and others
Zamora v. Bravo
as 1:2009cv00328
Plaintiff:
Kurt M. Zamora
Defendant:
Erasmo Bravo
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Ruppert v. Bravo et al
as 1:2009cv00138
Plaintiff:
James Kevin Ruppert
Defendant:
Erasmo Bravo, J Torello, FNU Rodgers and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Mason v. Bravo et al
as 1:2008cv00665
Plaintiff:
Michael Paul Mason
Defendant:
Erasmo Bravo and Attorney General for the State of New Mexico
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
Silva v. Bravo et al
as 1:2008cv00431
Plaintiff:
Gary Dwayne Silva
Defendant:
Erasmo Bravo and Attorney General of the State of New Mexico
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.
