Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Nathaniel Gann v. Valley State Prison, et al
as 22-16862
Plaintiff / Appellant:
NATHANIEL MARCUS GANN
Defendant / Appellee:
VALLEY STATE PRISON, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, STATEWIDE RELIGIOUS REVIEW COMMITTEE, J. KNIGHT, Appeals Examiner at the Office of Appeals (CDCR) and others
(PC) Gann v. Valley State Prison et al
as 1:2019cv01797
Plaintiff:
Oscar Zelaya, Michael Warzek, Thomas Michael Joseph Fox and others
Defendant:
T. Thornton, Valley State Prison, Timothy Anderson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(PC) Gann v. CDCR et al
as 1:2019cv01350
Plaintiff:
Nathaniel Marcus Gann
Defendant:
M. Pacheco, C. Stronach, E. Avila and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Gann v. Corral et al
as 1:2019at00236
Defendant:
S. Sherman, J. Zamora, D. Ibarra and others
Plaintiff:
Nathaniel Marcus Gann
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(PC) Gann v. Corral et al
as 1:2019cv00439
Defendant:
S. Sherman, J. Zamora, D. Ibarra and others
Plaintiff:
Nathaniel Marcus Gann
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Gann v. Kokor et al
as 1:2018cv00084
Plaintiff:
Nathaniel Marcus Gann
Defendant:
W. Kokor , J. Enenmoh , C. Cryer and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Gann v. Kokor et al
as 1:2018at00019
Plaintiff:
Nathaniel Marcus Gann
Defendant:
W. Kokor, J. Enenmoh, C. Cryer and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Nathaniel Gann v. Jeffrey Beard
as 17-55316
Petitioner - Appellant:
NATHANIEL MARCUS GANN
Respondent - Appellee:
JEFFREY BEARD
Gann v. Cate et al
as 3:2012cv02387
Petitioner:
Nathaniel Marcus Gann
Respondent:
Matthew Cate and Kamala Harris
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Gann v. Cate et al
as 3:2012cv01418
Petitioner:
Nathaniel Marcus Gann
Respondent:
Kamala Harris and Matthew Cate
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
