Cases 71 - 80 of 221
CRAVEN v. DIXON et al
as 5:2022cv00122
Petitioner:
DANIEL JACOB CRAVEN, JR
Respondent:
RICKY DIXON and ASHLEY MOODY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution
Celotto v. Smith et al
as 2:2022cv00201
Petitioner:
Mark S. Celotto
Respondent:
Kathleen Smith, Amira Fox, Ashley Moody and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
RAHAIM v. DIXON et al
as 4:2022cv00137
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER RAHAIM
Defendant:
RICKY D DIXON, ASHLEY MOODY, AKISTA ANDERSON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
McCrimmon et al v. Centurion of Florida, LLC et al
as 3:2020cv00036
Defendant:
K. MCCARTER, L. SWANSON, Tamara Taylor and others
Plaintiff:
Caron Dettmann and Sarah McCrimmon
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation
McCray v. Moody
as 2:2022cv00220
Petitioner:
Bruce Edward McCray, Jr.
Respondent:
Ashley Moody
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Barger v. Fox et al
as 2:2022cv00185
Petitioner:
Corey R. Barger
Respondent:
Kathleen Smith, Amira Fox, Ashley Moody and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Laycock v. Smith et al
as 2:2022cv00182
Plaintiff:
James B. Laycock
Defendant:
Kathleen Smith, Amira Fox, Ashley Moody and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Lovingood v. Smith et al
as 2:2022cv00208
Petitioner:
Daniel K. Lovingood
Respondent:
Kathleen Smith, Amira Fox, Ashley Moody and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
McCray v. Moody
as 3:2022cv00369
Petitioner:
Bruce Edward McCray, Jr.
Defendant:
Ashley Moody
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Lovingood v. Smith et al
as 1:2022cv20957
Plaintiff:
Daniel K. Lovingood
Defendant:
Kathleen Smith, Amira Fox, Ashley Moody and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 State 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.
