Cases 1 - 10 of 81
Lopez-Cortez v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento
as 24-2889
Petitioner:
RAUL LOPEZ-CORTEZ
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO
Interested Party:
S. SALMONSON, WARDEN
Lopez-Pina v. Garland
as 22-1686
Petitioner:
RAUL LOPEZ-PINA
Respondent:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
USA v. Raul Lopez-Alvarez
as 23-55442
Plaintiff / Appellant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellee:
RAUL LOPEZ-ALVAREZ
USA v. Raul Lopez-Valenzuela
as 21-50273
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
RAUL LOPEZ-VALENZUELA
USA v. Raul Lopez-Alvarez
as 20-55202
Defendant / Appellant:
RAUL LOPEZ-ALVAREZ
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Raul Lopez Reyes v. Erik Bonnar, et al
as 19-15604
Not Yet Classified:
JEFFREY LYNCH, Field Office Director, Denver Field Office, United States Immigration & Customs Enforcement, RAUL LOPEZ REYES, ERIK BONNAR, Acting Field Office Director, San Francisco Field Office, United States Immigration & Customs Enforcement and others
Reginald Bunn, Jr. v. Raul Lopez
as 17-16232
Petitioner - Appellant:
REGINALD THOMAS BUNN, Jr.
Respondent - Appellee:
RAUL LOPEZ, Warden
Roberto Lopez-Gomez, et al v. Jefferson Sessions, III
as 17-71197
Petitioner:
ROBERTO LOPEZ-GOMEZ, AKA Raul Lopez-Vieyra, AKA Felipe Miranda Ramos, AKA Felipe Rigoberto Ramos Miranda, DEYLIS YESENIA MORALES-VELASQUEZ and GELBER ARONI MORALES
Respondent:
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General
Raymond Peyton v. Edmund Brown, Jr., et al
as 17-55140
Plaintiff - Appellant:
RAYMOND EUGENE PEYTON
Defendant - Appellee:
EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr., JEFFREY BEARD, BERNARD J. SCHWARTZ and others
Robert Bishop v. Raul Lopez, et al
as 16-17352
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ROBERT BISHOP
Defendant - Appellee:
RAUL LOPEZ, Warden, J. GERMOND, C. RODRIGUEZ and others
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.
