Cases 1 - 10 of 85
(HC) Rogers v. CDCR et al
as 2:2024cv01150
Petitioner:
John William Rogers
Respondent:
San Joaquin Superior Court and CDCR
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
John William Harris, Jr. v. United States of America
as 8:2023cv01112
Petitioner:
John William Harris, Jr. and John William Harris, Jr
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
Demond Brackett v. Wendell Anderson, et al
as 22-16741
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DEMOND CHARLES BRACKETT
Defendant / Appellee:
WENDELL ANDERSON, Sheriff, BRIAN JON DAVIS, Chief Public Defender, CLINT CURRY, Chief District Attorney and others
John William Argel v. Cisneros
as 2:2022cv07993
Petitioner:
John William Argel
Respondent:
Cisneros
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
(HC) Upshaw v. Warden
as 1:2022cv00949
Petitioner:
John William Upshaw
Respondent:
Warden
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
(HC) Upshaw v. CSP Los Angeles
as 1:2022cv00898
Petitioner:
John William Upshaw
Respondent:
CSP Los Angeles
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
John William Argel v. Gavin Newsome et al
as 2:2022cv03344
Plaintiff:
John William Argel
Defendant:
Gavin Newsome, Adrian Galvan, Christopher S. Macauley and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
John Argel v. Ron Godwin, et al
as 22-15203
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JOHN WILLIAM ARGEL
Defendant / Appellee:
RON GODWIN, Warden and SCOTT FRAUENHEIM, Warden, warden
Upshaw v. Chau et al
as 3:2022cv00183
Plaintiff:
John William Upshaw
Defendant:
Dr. John Chau and Marcus Pollard
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
(PC) Brackett v. Wendell et al
as 2:2021cv02282
Plaintiff:
Demond Charles Brackett
Defendant:
Anderson Wendell, Brian Jon Davis, Clint Curry and others
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.
