Cases 21 - 30 of 115
Jones v. Reardon et al
as 2:2017cv00469
Plaintiff:
Ralph Earl Jones
Defendant:
Patrick Reardon, Rhonda Skipper-Dotta and California Board of Parole Hearings
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Edelbacher v. California Board of Parole Hearings et al
as 5:2017cv00118
Petitioner:
Peter Edelbacher
Respondent:
California Board of Parole Hearings et al
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Shawn Hawk v. CDCR, et al
as 16-16885
Plaintiff - Appellant:
SHAWN HAWK
Defendant - Appellee:
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, CALIFORNIA BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS, FORENSIC ASSESSMENT DIVISION and others
Hawk v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al
as 2:2015cv02529
Plaintiff:
Shawn Hawk
Defendant:
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, California Board of Parole Hearings, Forensic Assessment Division and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Briggs v. State of California Board of Parole Hearing
as 1:2015cv04577
Petitioner:
Kevin Briggs
Respondent:
State of California Board of Parole Hearing
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Von Staich v. California Board of Parole Hearings et al
as 2:2015cv01182
Plaintiff:
Ivan Von Staich
Defendant:
California Board of Parole Hearings, Jeffrey Ferguson and Raquel Fassnacht
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jackson v. California Board of Parole Hearings
as 2:2015cv00609
Petitioner:
Johnny Clifford Jackson
Respondent:
California Board of Parole Hearings
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Stephen Lucas v. Matthew Cate, et al
as 14-56176
Petitioner - Appellant:
STEPHEN S. LUCAS
Respondent - Appellee:
MATTHEW CATE and CALIFORNIA BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS
Robert John Garcia v. Tim Busby et al
as 2:2014cv04224
Respondent:
Mr. Timothy Busby and The California Board of Parole Hearings
Petitioner:
Robert John Garcia
Henry J Loible v. CDCR et al
as 5:2014cv00634
Respondent:
CDCR and California Board of Parole Hearings
Petitioner:
Henry J Loible
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.
