Cases 71 - 80 of 281
Jose Lozano v. John Doe 1 et al
as 5:2020cv00684
Plaintiff:
Jose Lozano
Defendant:
The Riverside County, Sheriff Deputy Enoch, Sheriff Deputy John Doe 1 and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
(PC) Cantu v. Doe 1 et al
as 1:2020cv00386
Plaintiff:
Joshua Jesse Cantu
Defendant:
John Doe 7, John Doe 6, John Doe 3 and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Tucker v. Doe #1 et al
as 3:2020cv00398
Defendant:
John Doe #2, Jane Doe #2, Jane Doe #3 and others
Plaintiff:
Ricco Dujuan Tucker
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
Paul Lee v. City of Huntington Beach, California et al
as 8:2020cv00301
Plaintiff:
Mr. Paul Lee
Defendant:
Officer John Doe 2, Officer Dineen, John Doe 2 and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Ryan Michael Spencer v. J. Wyatt et al
as 2:2020cv01364
Defendant:
A. Cruickshank, Felipe Martinez, Jr., Robinson and others
Plaintiff:
Ryan Michael Spencer
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
John Doe et al v. Camp Pendleton & Quantico Housing, LLC et al
as 3:2020cv00224
Plaintiff:
Jane Doe, John Doe 1, John Doe and others
Defendant:
LPC Pendleton Quantico PM LP, Lincoln Military Property Management LP, Camp Pendleton & Quantico Housing, LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442
Kevin Deshan Mabry v. McVay et al
as 2:2020cv00394
Respondent:
Purdy, L. Newton, John Doe #1 and others
Petitioner:
Kevin Deshan Mabry
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Kevin Deshan Mabry v. L. Newton et al
as 2:2019cv10445
Defendant:
Purdy, L. Newton, John Doe #1 and others
Plaintiff:
Kevin Deshan Mabry
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Mabry v. McVay et al
as 3:2019cv02361
Defendant:
Purdy, L. Newton, John Doe #1 and others
Plaintiff:
Kevin Deshan Mabry
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
Solorio v. Doe (1) et al
as 3:2019cv02193
Defendant:
W.L. Montgomery, C/O John Doe (2) and C/O John Doe (1)
Plaintiff:
Dionico Solorio
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
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.
