Cases 1 - 10 of 42
Adams v. Dahl et al
as 1:2023at00957
Plaintiff:
Paul Adams
Defendant:
Andy Dahl, Fabiola Hernandez, Eric Kendrick and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
(PC) Adams v. Dahl et al
as 1:2023cv01608
Plaintiff:
Paul Adams
Defendant:
Andy Dahl, Fabiola Hernandez, Eric Kendrick and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Adams v. Baker et al
as 6:2023cv00032
Plaintiff:
Michael Paul Adams
Defendant:
Jason Baker and Lewis Mathew
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Adams v. Sgt. Bragg et al
as 6:2023cv00025
Petitioner:
Michael Paul Adams
Respondent:
Sgt. Bragg and Attorney General of the State of Montana
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Adams v. Corizon Health Incorporated et al
as 2:2021cv01158
Plaintiff:
Paul Adams
Defendant:
Corizon Health Incorporated, Centurion of Arizona LLC and Charles Ryan
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(PC) Adams v. Dahl et al
as 1:2020cv00852
Defendant:
Dahl and E. Rios
Plaintiff:
Paul Adams
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Paul Adams, et al v. USDC, Fresno
as 20-71414
Not Classified By Court:
In re: PAUL ADAMS, RALPH M. DIAZ, Acting Secretary for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and GALVIN NEWSOME
Respondent:
USDC, FRESNO
Petitioner:
HENDRIX MORENO MONTECASTRO and PAUL ADAMS
(PC) Adams v. Newsom et al
as 1:2020cv00674
Defendant:
Ralph M. Diaz and Gavin Newsom
Plaintiff:
Paul Adams and Hendrix M. Montecastro
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Adams et al v. Newsom et al
as 3:2020cv01325
Plaintiff:
Hendrix Moreno Montecastro and Paul Adams
Defendant:
Ralph M. Diaz and Gavin Newsom
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(PC) Paul Adams v. Newsome et al
as 1:2019cv01109
Defendant:
Galvin Newsome and Ralph M. Diaz
Plaintiff:
Paul Adams
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
