Cases 1 - 10 of 14
(HC) Stepp v. Gamboa
as 2:2023cv01892
Petitioner:
Jasson Michael Stepp
Respondent:
Martin Gamboa
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
(PC) Martinez v. Campbell et al
as 1:2022cv01549
Plaintiff:
Ronald F. Martinez
Defendant:
Tammy Campbell, Ken Clark, E. McDaniel and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
(PC) Chavez v. Gomez et al
as 1:2020cv01684
Defendant:
A. Gomez, R. Anderson, M. Putnam and others
Plaintiff:
Moises Chavez
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(PC) Quair v. Board of Supervisors et al
as 1:2019cv00993
Defendant:
Lieutenant Timothy Day, Stacey, Rodriguez and others
Plaintiff:
Sammy Richard Quair, Sr.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Daley v Scoffield, et al
as 2:2012cv01528
Plaintiff:
Kathryn A. Daley
Defendant:
Lindy H Scoffield and Anwyl, Scoffield & Stepp LLP
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Bernard A. Steppe v. Warden
as 1:2011cv01240
Petitioner:
Bernard A. Steppe
Respondent:
Warden
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Parker v. Anwyl Scoffield & Stepp, LLP et al
as 2:2010cv01543
Plaintiff:
William A Parker
Defendant:
Anwyl Scoffield & Stepp LLP, James T. Anwyl, County of Sacramento and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Anthony, et al v. Benefield et al
as 2:2010cv00689
Defendant:
Jonothan Benefield, Julie Benefield and Walnut Hill Estate Enterprises, LLC
Plaintiff:
Angela Anthony , John Anthony , Joseph Adams and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Steppe v. Attorney General California
as 2:2009cv03452
Petitioner:
Bernard Steppe
Respondent:
Attorney General California
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Steppe v. Attorney General for the State of California
as 2:2008cv03020
Petitioner:
Bernard Steppe
Respondent:
Attorney General for the State of California
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
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.
