Cases 1 - 10 of 397
Pugh v. Fleming et al
as 2:2024cv00074
Plaintiff:
Christopher Lenard Pugh
Defendant:
Officer Robert R. Fleming, Sheriff Victor Hill, Judge Wanda Dallas and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
JOHNSON v. NEEL et al
as 3:2024cv00246
Plaintiff:
SHAQUON R JOHNSON
Defendant:
J NEEL, E MANNERS, S GREENE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Pugh v. O'Malley
as 3:2024cv00328
Plaintiff:
Adrianna Pugh
Defendant:
Martin J. O'Malley
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
MURZIKE v. GIELOW et al
as 3:2024cv00221
Plaintiff:
JAMES T. MURZIKE
Defendant:
W GIELOW, K PERKINS, J STREIT and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
MURZIKE v. CARR et al
as 3:2024cv00211
Plaintiff:
JAMES T. MURZIKE
Defendant:
J E CARR, T DYKES, C W CATTNACH and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Pugh v. Fleming et al
as 1:2024cv01445
Plaintiff:
Christopher Lendard Pugh and Christopher Lenard Pugh
Defendant:
Officer Robert Fleming, Sheriff Victor Hill, Judge Wonda Dallas and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Shaquille Parker v. Deandrea Pugh, et al
as 24-10861
Plaintiff:
SHAQUILLE PARKER
Defendant:
DEANDREA PUGH, EBONY COLEMAN, LESTER MURRAY and others
FLORES v. PUGH et al
as 3:2024cv00068
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM FLORES
Defendant:
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, CHAD PUGH, AUSTIN LEE ALLIGOOD and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
PUGH v. MIMS
as 4:2023cv00201
Petitioner:
OTIS WADE PUGH, SR
Respondent:
Warden CHARLES MIMS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
PUGH v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 9:2023cv25661
Plaintiff:
JOSEPH PUGH
Defendant:
3M COMPANY, 3M OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY LLC, AEARO HOLDING LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
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.
