Cases 1 - 10 of 150
Norton v. Caternolo
as 2:2024cv00540
Petitioner:
Daniel Norton
Respondent:
R Caternolo
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Norton v. Jacquez
as 3:2023cv01835
Petitioner:
Daniel Emerson Norton
Respondent:
Israel Jacquez
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Norton v. Jacquez
as 3:2023cv01765
Petitioner:
Daniel Emerson Norton
Respondent:
Israel Jacquez
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Norton, III v. Hutchingson et al
as 2:2023cv01357
Petitioner:
Joseph Martin Norton, III
Respondent:
William Hutchingson and Nevada Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
(HC) Norton v. CDCR
as 2:2023cv01762
Petitioner:
Matthew Edward Norton
Respondent:
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitiation
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Norton, III v. Hutchingson et al
as 2:2023cv00611
Plaintiff:
Joseph Martin Norton, III
Defendant:
William Hutchingson, James Scally and Luiz
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Norton v. Grasley et al
as 3:2023cv00565
Plaintiff:
Daniel Emerson Norton
Defendant:
Dr. Andrew Barnes Grasley and Israel Jacquez
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Weaver v. Oregon Department of Corrections et al
as 3:2023cv00402
Plaintiff:
Richard Francis Weaver
Defendant:
Oregon Department of Corrections, Moriam Balogun, Leland P. Beamer, MD and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Norton v. Jacquez
as 3:2023cv00303
Petitioner:
Daniel Emerson Norton
Respondent:
Israel Jacquez
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Pico v. Cooke et al
as 6:2023cv00287
Plaintiff:
Marcos Andres Pico
Defendant:
Shari Cooke, Michelle Messenger, Karon Stanek 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.
