Cases 1 - 10 of 16
Jermaine Barnes v. Warren Mongomery
as 22-55849
Petitioner / Appellant:
JERMAINE ALEXANDER BARNES
Respondent / Appellee:
WARREN L. MONGOMERY, Warden
Garcia v. May et al
as 1:2022cv00957
Plaintiff:
Anibal Melendez Garcia
Defendant:
Robert May, Cpt. Dotson, Orlando DeJesus and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jermaine Alexander Barnes v. Warren L. Montgomery
as 5:2021cv01424
Petitioner:
Petitioner Jermaine Alexander Barnes and Jermaine Alexander Barnes
Respondent:
Warden Warren L. Mongomery and Warren L. Mongomery
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Andrew Cheshire v. People of the State of California et al
as 2:2020cv11352
Respondent:
Warren Mongomery and People of the State of California
Petitioner:
Andrew Cheshire
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Schiff v. Montgomery County States Attorney's Office et al
as 8:2020cv01010
Defendant:
Office of Public Defender, Mongomery County, Mark Elrich and Montgomery County States Attorney's Office
Plaintiff:
Graham Harry Schiff
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
Gary M. Davis v. Warren L. Mongomery et al
as 2:2020cv02955
Petitioner:
Gary M. Davis
Respondent:
Warren L. Mongomery and Attorney General of California
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(PC) Rayford v. Sherman et al
as 1:2019cv00225
Defendant:
S. Magnia, K. Rening, A. Williams and others
Plaintiff:
Eugene Rayford
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(PC) Rayford v. Sherman et al
as 2:2019cv00246
Defendant:
S. Magnia, K. Rening, A. Williams and others
Plaintiff:
Eugene Rayford
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Carter v. Mongomery
as 1:2017cv04711
Plaintiff:
Byron Carter
Defendant:
CO Mongomery
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Longoria v. Thompson et al
as 4:2017cv00011
Defendant:
David Flores, Co. III FNU Martinez, FNU Mongomery and others
Plaintiff:
Arturo Soto Longoria
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.
