Cases 1 - 10 of 77
(HC)Brandstatt v. Clark
as 1:2022cv01193
Petitioner:
William H.L. Brandstatt
Respondent:
Kenneth Clark
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
(HC) Brandstatt v. Clark
as 1:2022cv00299
Petitioner:
William H.L. Brandstatt
Respondent:
Kenneth Clark
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Thomas v. GEO SECURE SERVICES, LLC et al
as 2:2021cv02834
Plaintiff:
Jazmar Thomas
Defendant:
CORRECTION OFFICER, JOHN DOE 1, also known to Plaintiff as CORRECTION OFFICER, WAKU, GEO SECURE SERVICES, LLC, CORRECTION OFFICER, JOHN DOE 2, also known to Plaintiff as CORRECTION OFFICER, NIBLEY and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
(PC)Figueroa v. Clark et al
as 1:2019cv00968
Defendant:
C. Bell, J. Ceballos, Navarro and others
Plaintiff:
Ruben Figueroa
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
CLARK v. TOBY et al
as 5:2018cv00339
Defendant:
DEPUTY WARDEN IVEY, UNIT MANAGER PASCAL, CHIEF COUNSELOR FOLSOM and others
Plaintiff:
KENNETH CLARK
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
McClinton v. Graham et al
as 9:2018cv00752
Defendant:
Lara Osika-Michales, Keonigsmann, Rachael Seguin and others
Plaintiff:
Charles D. McClinton
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Clark v. Warden Kilpatrick et al
as 6:2018cv00068
Plaintiff:
Kenneth Clark
Defendant:
Kilpatrick, Smith, West and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Kenneth Clark v. Matthew Cate
as 18-55452
Petitioner - Appellant:
KENNETH CLARK
Respondent - Appellee:
MATTHEW CATE, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
CLARK v. TODD et al
as 5:2016cv00350
Plaintiff:
KENNETH CLARK
Defendant:
JACK ALLEN TODD, ZELL MILLER, ANGIE EVANS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Clark v. Martin et al
as 5:2016ct03145
Plaintiff:
Kenneth Clark
Defendant:
Sergeant Martin and Roderick Watson
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.
