Cases 1 - 10 of 33
Gonzalez v. U.S. District Court (City of San Diego) Southern District of California
as 3:2024cv00605
Plaintiff:
Raul Gonzalez, Chief Bacon Gonzalez and Juan Cuenca
Defendant:
U.S. District Court (City of San Diego) Southern District of California
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Gonzalez v. GEO Western Detention Facility et al
as 3:2024cv00257
Plaintiff:
Raul Gonzalez
Defendant:
GEO Western Detention Facility, N. Vazquez, Carney and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 b Fed. Question: Bivens Act
Gonzalez v. USA
as 1:2023cv00520
Petitioner:
Jose Raul Gonzalez
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate Sentence
Gonzalez v. Cavazos et al
as 2:2023cv00097
Plaintiff:
Raul Gonzalez
Defendant:
Captain Cavazos, Captain Pauly, Officer J. Hawkins and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Gonzalez v. Resendez
as 22-40597
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Raul Gonzalez
Defendant / Appellee:
Sergeant Josie Resendez
Gonzalez v. Lumpkin
as 22-10569
Petitioner / Appellant:
Raul Gonzalez
Respondent / Appellee:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Gonzalez v. Stanberry
as 4:2022cv00265
Plaintiff:
Raul Gonzalez
Defendant:
Teri Stanberry
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Gonzalez v. Stanberry
as 3:2022cv00711
Plaintiff:
Raul Gonzalez
Defendant:
Teri Stanberry
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Gonzalez-Mendoza v. United States of America
as 7:2022cv00093
Petitioner:
Pedro Raul Gonzalez-Mendoza
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
Gonzalez v. Gonzalez et al
as 6:2022cv00017
Plaintiff:
Raul Gonzalez
Defendant:
Sergeant Raquel Gonzalez, Captain Trahan and Sergeant Pollard
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.
