Cases 1 - 10 of 100
Prout v. Costco
as 3:2024cv00703
Plaintiff:
Kevin M Prout
Defendant:
Costco
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 va Fed. Question: Violation 5th & 14th Amendment
Kevin M. DeHoog v. Comptons Sheriffs Dep. Train Div.
as 8:2024cv00744
Plaintiff:
Kevin M. DeHoog
Defendant:
Comptons Sheriffs Dep. Train Div.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Kevin M. DeHoog v. Compton Sheriffs Train Division Body Cameras
as 8:2024cv00637
Plaintiff:
Kevin M DeHoog
Defendant:
Compton Sheriffs Train Division Body Cameras
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Kevin M. DeHoog v. Theo Lacy
as 8:2024cv00638
Plaintiff:
Kevin M DeHoog
Defendant:
Theo Lacy
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Kevin M. DeHoog v. Theo Lacy Masked Guards
as 8:2024cv00586
Plaintiff:
Kevin M DeHoog
Defendant:
Theo Lacy Masked Guards
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Kevin Michael DeHoog v. Private Quinzler Deputy et al
as 8:2024cv00558
Plaintiff:
Kevin M DeHoog
Defendant:
Private Quinzler Deputy, Private Hernandez Deputy, Private Gonzalez Deputy and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Kevin M DeHoog v. Compton Sheriffs Train Div
as 8:2024cv00473
Petitioner:
Kevin M DeHoog
Respondent:
Compton Sheriffs Train Div
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Kevin M. De Hoog v. Masked Guards of Theo Lacy Strip Search
as 8:2024cv00472
Plaintiff:
Kevin M. De Hoog
Defendant:
Masked Guards of Theo Lacy Strip Search
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Kevin M. De Hoog v. Quinzler et al
as 8:2024cv00471
Plaintiff:
Kevin M. De Hoog
Defendant:
Quinzler, Mungua, Gonzalez and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Tai v. Seu et al
as 3:2024cv01198
Plaintiff:
Alexander Tai
Defendant:
Scott W. H. Seu, Thomas B. Fargo, Celeste A. Connors and others
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.
