Cases 1 - 8 of 8
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2014cv00691
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
Pablo Morales v. USDC-SAC
as 14-70921
:
In re: PABLO MORALES
Petitioner:
PABLO MORALES
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO
Real Party In Interest:
M. CATES, KATHLEEN ALLISON, Warden and K. SANTORO
Eric Knapp v. USDC-CAFR
as 13-73365
:
In re: ERIC CHARLES RODNEY KNAPP
Petitioner:
ERIC CHARLES RODNEY KNAPP
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, FRESNO
Real Party In Interest:
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION, SIERRA CONSERVATION CENTER, CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES and others
William Lewis v. M. Cate
as 5:2009cv01773
Plaintiff:
William Lewis
Defendant:
M. Cate
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Forma Pauperis Denial
Darren Eugene Sherman-Bey v. John Marshall et al
as 2:2009cv06494
Plaintiff:
Darren Eugene Sherman-Bey
Defendant:
John Marshall, John Marshall, M. Cates and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
William Lewis v. M. Cate
as 5:2009cv01477
Plaintiff:
William Lewis
Defendant:
M. Cate
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Forma Pauperis Denial
Ivan Von Staich v. USDC-CAN
as 09-71405
:
In re: IVAN VON STAICH
Petitioner:
IVAN VON STAICH
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO
Real Party In Interest:
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS, M. CATES
Aberasturi et al v. Raymond James Financial Services Inc et al
as 1:2008cv00496
Plaintiff:
Claire R. Aberasturi, Claire R. Aberasturi, Teddy W. Adkins and others
Defendant:
Raymond James Financial Services Inc, Raymond James Financial Services Inc, Raymond James Financial Services Inc and others
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.
