Cases 1 - 8 of 8
Rogers v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento
as 24-805
Petitioner:
KIM EDWARD ROGERS
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO
Interested Party:
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, KEATON RILEY, Chief of State to Patrick Kennedy, JIM COOPER, Sacramento Sheriff and others
Rogers v. County of Sacramento, et al.
as 24-738
Plaintiff:
KIM EDWARD ROGERS
Defendant:
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, KEATON RILEY, Chief of State to Patrick Kennedy, JIM COOPER, Sacramento Sheriff and others
(PS) Rogers v. County of Sacramento et al
as 2:2024cv00387
Plaintiff:
Kim Edward Rogers
Defendant:
County of Sacramento, Keaton Riley, Jim Cooper and others
Cause Of Action: 48 U.S.C. § 1985 Conspiracy/Deprivation Civil Rights
Rogers v. Sacramento County, et al.
as 24-559
Plaintiff / Appellant:
KIM EDWARD ROGERS
Defendant / Appellee:
SACRAMENTO COUNTY, Board of Supervisors, CITY OF SACRAMENTO, City Clerk, JIM COOPER, Sacramento Sheriff and others
Rogers v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento
as 24-512
Petitioner:
KIM EDWARD ROGERS
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO
Not Classified By Court:
SACRAMENTO COUNTY, Board of Supervisors, CITY OF SACRAMENTO, City Clerk, JIM COOPER, Sacramento Sheriff and others
(PS) Rogers v. County of Sacramento et al
as 2:2024cv00237
Plaintiff:
Kim Edward Rogers
Defendant:
County of Sacramento, City of Sacramento, Jim Cooper and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
David Meriwether v. Viacom, Inc.
as 2:2018cv01998
Defendant:
Quinn Hawking, Josiah Johnson, Bento Box Entertainment, LLC and others
Plaintiff:
David Meriwether
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2011cv02133
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
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.
