Cases 31 - 40 of 212
HODGE v. DIXON et al
as 3:2023cv24738
Plaintiff:
DWIGHT HODGE
Defendant:
RICKY D DIXON, K WATKINS, D JONES and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
MILLER v. DIXON
as 4:2023cv00517
Petitioner:
DAVID R MILLER
Respondent:
RICKY D DIXON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
WADE v. DIXON
as 4:2023cv00508
Petitioner:
RANDY J WADE
Respondent:
RICKY D DIXON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Noel Nino v. Michael Sanjurjo, et al
as 23-13844
Plaintiff / Appellant:
NOEL NORBERTO NINO
Defendant / Appellee:
MICHAEL SANJURJO, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Official Capacity, RICKY D. DIXON and others
Willis v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Seminole County)
as 5:2023cv00683
Petitioner:
Lil Burtie Willis
Respondent:
Ricky D. Dixon and Secretary, Department of Corrections
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Reginal Paulk, Sr. v. Ricky Dixon, et al
as 23-13750
Plaintiff / Appellant:
REGINAL ANDREW PAULK, SR.
Defendant / Appellee:
RICKY D. DIXON, THOMAS REIMERS, ABIA IMESIT and others
GOLDEN v. DIXON et al
as 4:2023cv00493
Plaintiff:
SAMUEL CHRISTOPHER GOLDEN
Defendant:
RICKY D DIXON, TATIANA R SALVADOR, STEPHANIE W RAY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
FRANKLIN v. DIXON
as 4:2023cv00497
Petitioner:
LEON FRANKLIN, JR
Respondent:
RICKY D DIXON and STATE OF FLORIDA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
HERRING v. DIXON
as 4:2023cv00494
Petitioner:
STEVE HERRING
Respondent:
RICKY D DIXON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hightower v. Dixon
as 2:2023cv14356
Petitioner:
Timothy Hightower
Respondent:
Ricky D Dixon
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
