Cases 11 - 20 of 316
Edward Craig, II v. Pinellas County Sheriff, et al
as 23-13490
Plaintiff / Appellant:
EDWARD CECIL CRAIG, II
Defendant / Appellee:
PINELLAS COUNTY SHERIFF, FOOD SERVICE DIRECTOR, CHAPLAIN HANSON and others
Edward Craig, II v. Bob Gualtieri, et al
as 23-13491
Plaintiff / Appellant:
EDWARD CECIL CRAIG, II
Defendant / Appellee:
BOB GUALTIERI, STANFIELD, DEPUTY CAMINERO and others
Kenel Joseph v. K. Williams, et al
as 23-13237
Plaintiff / Appellant:
KENEL JOSEPH
Defendant / Appellee:
K. WILLIAMS, WARDEN, M. NEAL and others
Raymond Gill v. Warden, FCC Coleman - Medium
as 23-13117
Petitioner / Appellant:
RAYMOND EDWARD GILL
Respondent / Appellee:
WARDEN, FCC COLEMAN - MEDIUM
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 23-13025
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant / Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Edward Reeder v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al
as 23-12933
Petitioner / Appellant:
EDWARD NICHOLAS REEDER
Respondent / Appellee:
SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL
Samuel Fowler v. Clinton Perry, Jr., et al
as 23-12872
Plaintiff / Appellant:
SAMUEL LEWIS FOWLER
Defendant / Appellee:
CLINTON PERRY, JR., DEXTER SPIKES, MICHAEL THOMAS and others
Raymond Gill v. FCC Coleman Warden, et al
as 23-12717
Plaintiff / Appellant:
RAYMOND EDWARD GILL and ERIC BRYANT
Defendant / Appellee:
FCC COLEMAN WARDEN, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and PRISON CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS, FCC COLEMAN
Edward Jacobs v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, et al
as 23-12677
Petitioner / Appellant:
EDWARD CARL JACOBS
Respondent / Appellee:
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA
Roy Stephens, Jr. v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, et al
as 23-12554
Petitioner / Appellant:
ROY EDWARDS STEPHENS, JR.
Respondent / Appellee:
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
