Cases 1 - 9 of 9
Jose Fierro v. Keith Smith, et al
as 19-16786
Defendant:
M. ESPINOZA, C.O. IV/ Grievance Coordinator at Central Unit - Florence, MALACHINSKI, MOLERA, C.O. II and others
Defendant / Appellee:
L. FORESTER, D.W., KEITH SMITH, Security Operations Administrator at Phoenix Division Director's Office, PANANN DAYS and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JOSE ABEL FIERRO
Scott v. Ryan et al
as 2:2014cv01478
Defendant:
Charles L Ryan, A Candelaria, M Solis-Fernandez and others
Plaintiff:
Delbert Dee Scott
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Sovereign Bank, N.A. v. Lee et al
as 2:2013cv02756
Defendant:
Ally Bank, Big Daddy Properties, LLC, Brookhaven Memorial Hospital Medical Center and others
Plaintiff:
Sovereign Bank, N.A.
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Benefield v. Ryan et al
as 2:2012cv02693
Plaintiff:
Kacy Kinard Benefield
Defendant:
Charles L Ryan, Tara Diaz, Chris Moody and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Victor Parra v. Michael McCarville, et al
as 12-17167
Petitioner - Appellant:
VICTOR PARRA
Respondent - Appellee:
MICHAEL MCCARVILLE and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Somoza-Vega v. Ryan et al
as 2:2012cv01618
Plaintiff:
Erick Somoza-Vega
Defendant:
Charles L Ryan, Tara Diaz, Michael McCarville and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Montoya v. Dear, et al
as 2:2010cv00193
Plaintiff:
Carlos Paul Montoya
Defendant:
R Dear and Michael McCarville
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Parra v. McCarville et al
as 4:2009cv00554
Petitioner:
Victor Parra
Respondent:
Michael McCarville and Arizona Attorney General, State of
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Fimbrez v. Schriro et al
as 4:2007cv00433
Plaintiff:
Robert Anthony Fimbrez
Defendant:
Dora Schriro, Donna H Clement, Steve Ickes and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
