Cases 91 - 100 of 719
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2022cv00619
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Thomas v. State of Florida et al
as 1:2022cv21687
Plaintiff:
Richard Anthony Thomas
Defendant:
State of Florida, Metro-Dade Police Dept., George A. Perez and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 State Prisoner Civil Rights
Perez v. Headley
as 3:2022cv00658
Petitioner:
Raymond Qvo Perez
Respondent:
Joseph H Headley
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
EVANS v. HERNANDEZ et al
as 5:2022cv00093
Plaintiff:
WESLEY EVANS
Defendant:
E HERNANDEZ, DR J LAY, DR E HERNANDEZ-PEREZ and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Baalim v. USA, Inc. et al
as 6:2022cv00847
Plaintiff:
Malak Baalim and Norbert KO Cody, II
Defendant:
USA, Inc., State of Florida, Orlando Police Department and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Pedro Perez-Hernandez v. USA
as 22-11340
Petitioner / Appellant:
PEDRO PEREZ-HERNANDEZ
Respondent / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Derrick James v. E. Perez-Lugo, et al
as 22-11301
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DERRICK GREGORY JAMES
Defendant / Appellee:
E. PEREZ-LUGO, MICHELLE SCHOUEST and TONI BOWDEN
Connell v. Perez et al
as 1:2022cv21219
Plaintiff:
Timothy Alan Connell
Defendant:
Perez, Florez and Bruno Gonzalas
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 State Prisoner Civil Rights
Baalim v. USA, Inc. et al
as 6:2022cv00672
Plaintiff:
Malak Baalim and Norbert KO Cody, II
Defendant:
USA, Inc., State of Florida, Orlando Police Department and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
THOMAS v. NAGEL et al
as 1:2022cv00079
Plaintiff:
ANTHONY BERNARD THOMAS
Defendant:
RYAN NAGEL, DIMITRI WILSON, LIONEL ORTIZ-PEREZ and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
