Cases 51 - 59 of 59
Forbes v. United States of America
as 3:2009cv00630
Petitioner:
Trevor O. Forbes
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate Sentence
Thomas v. Jackson et al
as 1:2009cv01074
Plaintiff:
Shelton R. Thomas
Defendant:
Ted Jackson, Fulton County, Riley Taylor and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Forbes v. Burnette
as 1:2009cv00807
Petitioner:
Michael Forbes
Respondent:
Fred Burnette
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Forbes v. Legal Research Associates et al
as 1:2009cv20428
Plaintiff:
Chonton Forbes
Defendant:
Legal Research Associates and Miami-Dade Department of Corrections
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Terrell v. Fulton County et al
as 1:2009cv00513
Plaintiff:
Willie James Terrell, Jr.
Defendant:
Fulton County, Myron E. Freeman, E. McNeil and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Forbes v. Secretary, Department of Corrections et al
as 8:2008cv01687
Petitioner:
Antonio G. Forbes
Respondent:
Secretary, Department of Corrections and Attorney General, State of Florida
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Forbes v. Warden, FCC Coleman - Low
as 5:2008cv00071
Petitioner:
David Forbes, Jr.
Respondent:
Warden, FCC Coleman - Low
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
Forbes v. Secretary, Department of Corrections et al
as 8:2008cv00255
Petitioner:
Antonio G. Forbes
Respondent:
Secretary, Department of Corrections and Florida Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Forbes v. Secretary of the Department of Corrections
as 1:2007cv20571
Plaintiff:
Everitte L. Forbes
Defendant:
Secretary of the Department of Corrections, Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Secretary of the Department of Corrections
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.
