Cases 11 - 20 of 980
BEAGLES v. DIXON et al
as 4:2024cv00093
Petitioner:
JOHNNY DALTON BEAGLES
Respondent:
RICKY DIXON and ASHLEY MOODY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Toles v. Newsome et al
as 4:2024cv00035
Plaintiff:
Quonterious Toles
Defendant:
Lt. Newsome and CO II Moody
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
BROWN v. DIXON
as 1:2024cv00041
Petitioner:
EDWARD LEE BROWN
Respondent:
ASHLEY MOODY and RICKY D DIXON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
LORUSSO v. DESANTIS et al
as 3:2024cv00083
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL LORUSSO
Defendant:
RON DESANTIS, ASHLEY MOODY and CENTURION MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
LORUSSO v. DIXON et al
as 3:2024cv00080
Petitioner:
MICHAEL LORUSSO
Respondent:
FLORIDA SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS
Defendant:
RICKY D DIXON, ASHLEY MOODY and CENTURION MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Owen v. Moody
as 3:2024cv00181
Petitioner:
Raymond Owen, Jr.
Respondent:
Ashley Moody
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
MORALES v. DIXON et al
as 3:2024cv00057
Petitioner:
LEONARDO T MORALES
Defendant:
RICKY D DIXON, LANCE NEFF and ASHLEY MOODY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00030
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00450
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Race)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 0:2024cv60128
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
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.
