Cases 1 - 10 of 11,596
Williams v. Carlin
as 1:2024cv00216
Petitioner:
Kilby Dee Williams
Respondent:
Terema Carlin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
(PC) Harper v. Williams et al
as 2:2024cv01278
Plaintiff:
Daniel Harper
Defendant:
Clayburne Williams and Jeff Lynch
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Smith v. USA
as 2:2024cv00846
Petitioner:
William Oliver Smith
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
Javier v. Bode et al
as 3:2024cv00099
Plaintiff:
Sean Javier
Defendant:
Bode, Dean R. Williams and S. Thomas
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
(PC) Nible v. Macomber et al
as 2:2024cv01259
Plaintiff:
William Lyle Nible
Defendant:
Jeff Macomber and Tommee Dorsey
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Williams #319412 v. Thornell et al
as 2:2024cv00976
Petitioner:
Timothy Huntley Williams
Respondent:
Ryan Thornell and Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Ackerman v. Kuloloia et al
as 2:2024cv00807
Plaintiff:
Jin Ackerman
Defendant:
William Kuloloia, Russel, Dons and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
(PC) Mack v. Schwarzneggar et al
as 2:2024cv01221
Plaintiff:
Anthony E. Mack
Defendant:
Arnold Schwarzneggar, Edmund G. Brown, Gavin Newsom and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
(PC) Soto v. Sacramento Main Jail et al
as 2:2024cv01222
Plaintiff:
William Soto
Defendant:
Sacramento Main Jail and Sacramento RCCC
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Gonzales v. Gittere et al
as 2:2024cv00816
Petitioner:
Raul Gonzales
Respondent:
Warden William Gittere and The Attorney General of the State of Nevada
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
