Cases 11 - 20 of 32
Weisz v. Coonrod et al
as 1:2013cv23826
Plaintiff:
Bruce Weisz
Defendant:
Melinda N. Coonrod , Tena M. Pate and Bernard Cohen, Sr.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BAKER v. PATE et al
as 3:2013cv00359
Petitioner:
ANTHONY BAKER
Respondent:
TENA M PATE and MICHAEL D CREWS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Randy Spencer v. Warden, et al
as 13-10017
Petitioner - Appellant:
RANDY LAVERN SPENCER
Respondent - Appellee:
FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, TENA M. PATE and WARDEN
Randy Spencer v. Warden, et al
as 12-16369
Petitioner - Appellant:
RANDY LAVERN SPENCER
Respondent - Appellee:
WARDEN, FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION and TENA M. PATE, Chair of the Florida Parole Commission
Valle v. Scott et al
as 3:2011cv00953
Plaintiff:
Manuel Valle
Defendant:
Rick Scott , Pam Bondi , Jeff Atwater and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Aaron Pugh, Jr. v. Secretary, Florida Department, et al
as 11-12577
Plaintiff - Appellant:
AARON PUGH, JR.
Defendant - Appellee:
SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, FREDERICK B. DUNPHY, Commissioner/Chairman, TENA M. PATE, Vice Commissioner and others
HAMPTON v. BUSS
as 3:2011cv00127
Petitioner:
ALLEN HAMPTON
Respondent:
EDWIN BUSS and TENA M PATE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Thomas Thorne v. Chairperson Fl Parole Comm., et al
as 10-15246
Plaintiff - Appellant:
THOMAS EUGENE THORNE
Defendant - Appellee:
FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, TENA M. PATE, Parole Commissioner and MONICA DAVID, Parole Commissioner
James Frederick v. Monica David
as 10-15203
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JAMES L FREDERICK
Defendant - Appellee:
MONICA DAVID, FREDERICK B. DUNPHY, Vice Chairman, TENA M. PATE and others
Philip Bagley v. Frederick Dunphy, et al
as 10-14461
Plaintiff - Appellant:
PHILIP G. BAGLEY
Defendant - Appellee:
FREDERICK B. DUNPHY, Commissioner, TENA M. PATE, Commissioner, MONICA DAVID, Commissioner and others
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.
