Cases 161 - 170 of 49,162
Rickie Tigue, Jr. v. Moses Jackson, et al
as 24-2029
Plaintiff:
Rickie Lynn Tigue, Jr.
Defendant:
Moses Jackson, Warden, EARU, Brickey's Max, Johnson, Warden, EARU, Brickey's Max, Allison, Major, EARU, Brickey's Max and others
Christopher Croom v. Joshua Schoenback, et al
as 24-1875
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER L. CROOM
Defendant:
JOSHUA SCHOENBACK, TERRANCE JACKSON, SANDY WALKER and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00599
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
(PC) Jackson v. Pouge, et al.
as 1:2024cv00585
Plaintiff:
Cornel Jackson
Defendant:
Tyson Pouge, Esteves, Cpt. Rodriguez and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Wood
as 8:2024cv01194
Plaintiff:
Charity Noelle Wood
Defendant:
Jonathan Robert Hawkin, The State of Florida, Paul Showalter and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jackson v. Ward et al
as 3:2024cv00033
Plaintiff:
William R. Jackson
Defendant:
Timothy C. Ward, Kim Patton-Johnson and Stephanie Damiels
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2024cv00682
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2024cv00687
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination
P.H. v. Agape Baptist Church, Inc. et al
as 6:2024cv03149
Defendant:
James McCrary, Agape Baptist Church, Inc. doing business as Agape Boarding School, Julio Sandoval and others
Plaintiff:
P.H.
Silva v. Rylander et al
as 4:2024cv00348
Plaintiff:
Christopher Z Silva
Defendant:
Kate Rylander, Stacey Cooper, Linda Jackson and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) 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.
