Cases 1 - 10 of 28
JACKSON v. DIXON et al
as 4:2023cv00437
Plaintiff:
DOUGLAS MARSHALL JACKSON
Defendant:
RICKY D DIXON, JOHNNY FRAMBO and FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jackson v. Dixon et al
as 1:2023cv23616
Plaintiff:
Douglas Marshall Jackson
Defendant:
Ricky D. Dixon doing business as Secretary, Johmmy Frambo doing business as Chaplaincy Services Administrator for FDC and Florida Department of Corrections
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 State Prisoner Civil Rights
Jackson v. Dixon et al
as 1:2023cv21012
Plaintiff:
Douglas Marshall Jackson and Douglas Marshall
Defendant:
Ricky D. Dixon and Johnny Frambo
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 State Prisoner Civil Rights
Jackson v. Dixon et al
as 5:2022cv00313
Plaintiff:
Douglas Marshall Jackson
Defendant:
Ricky D. Dixon, Johnny Frambo, J. Baldridge and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
JACKSON v. DIXON et al
as 4:2022cv00251
Plaintiff:
DOUGLAS MARSHALL JACKSON
Defendant:
RICKY D DIXON, JOHNNY FRAMBO, ROBERT CONNER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jackson v. Inch et al
as 5:2021cv00255
Plaintiff:
Douglas Marshall Jackson
Defendant:
R Schmitt, J. Baldridge and Mark Inch
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
JACKSON v. INCH
as 3:2021cv00732
Plaintiff:
DOUGLAS MARSHALL JACKSON
Defendant:
MARK INCH, W CLEMMONS, R FLORES and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jackson v. Inch et al
as 5:2021cv00183
Plaintiff:
Douglas Marshall Jackson
Defendant:
A. Dougherty, S. Schmidt, J. Baldridge and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
JACKSON v. INCH
as 3:2021cv00132
Plaintiff:
DOUGLAS MARSHALL JACKSON
Defendant:
MARK INCH
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
JACKSON v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
as 3:2020cv05882
Plaintiff:
DOUGLAS MARSHALL JACKSON
Defendant:
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
