Cases 1 - 10 of 15
Pickett v. Samuel
as 22-418
Petitioner:
NORMAN CHARLES PICKETT, JR.
Respondent:
DANNY SAMUEL, WARDEN
Norman Pickett, Jr. v. E. Hawkins, et al
as 21-55247
Defendant / Appellee:
S. CHISHOLM, PHd. Psychologist tech., individual, E. HAWKINS, Licensed Clinician Social Worker, individual, A. M. DONNELLY, Phd. Psychologist, individual and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
NORMAN CHARLES PICKETT, Jr.
Norman Pickett, Jr. v. Sacramento Superior Court, et al
as 12-16942
Plaintiff - Appellant:
NORMAN CHARLES PICKETT, Jr.
Defendant - Appellee:
SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR COURT and KATE JOHNSON
Pickett v. Repasky
as 3:2012cv03384
Plaintiff:
Norman Charles Pickett, Jr.
Defendant:
T. Repasky
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Norman Pickett, Jr. v. R. Zamora, et al
as 12-56137
Plaintiff - Appellant:
NORMAN CHARLES PICKETT, Jr.
Defendant - Appellee:
R. A. ZAMORA, individual capacity, J. JAVAUX, individual capacity and M. VELA, individual capacity
Norman Pickett, Jr. v. T. Repasky, et al
as 12-16200
Plaintiff - Appellant:
NORMAN CHARLES PICKETT, Jr.
Defendant - Appellee:
T. REPASKY, Dentist, Y. OLIVAS, Appeals Coordinator, L. D. ZAMORA, Appeal Coordinator and others
Pickett v. Sacramento Superior Court et al
as 2:2011cv02321
Plaintiff:
Norman Charles Pickett, Jr.
Defendant:
Sacramento Superior Court and Kate Johnston
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Pickett v. Repasky et al
as 3:2011cv04367
Plaintiff:
Norman Charles Pickett, Jr.
Defendant:
T. Repasky, Y. Olivas, L. D. Zamora and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Norman Pickett, Jr. v. R. Zamora, et al
as 11-55818
Plaintiff - Appellant:
NORMAN CHARLES PICKETT, Jr.
Defendant - Appellee:
R. A. ZAMORA, in individual capacity, J. JAVAUX, in individual capacity and M. VELA, in individual capacity
Norman Pickett, Jr. v. Randy Ground
as 11-70551
Petitioner:
NORMAN CHARLES PICKETT, Jr.
Respondent:
RANDY GROUNDS, Warden, Warden
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.
