Cases 1 - 10 of 24
ARCE v. ZINGALE
as 3:2026cv04760
Plaintiff:
ARMANDO ARCE
Defendant:
JIM ZINGALE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Armando Arce, Sr.In re: Armando Arce, Sr.
as 26-12058
Petitioner:
In re: ARMANDO ARCE, SR.
Respondent:
OKALOOSA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, JACOB MARTINCIN, JAMES KOEHN and others
Armando Arce, Sr.In re: Armando Arce, Sr.
as 26-12053
Petitioner:
In re: ARMANDO ARCE, SR.
Respondent:
OKALOOSA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, JACOB MARTINCIN, JAMES KOEHN and others
Armando Arce, Sr. v. Okaloosa County Department of Corrections, et al
as 26-11892
Plaintiff:
ARMANDO ARCE, SR.
Defendant:
OKALOOSA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, JACOB MARTINCIN, JAMES KOEHN and others
In re: Armando Arce, Sr.
as 26-11792
Petitioner:
In re: ARMANDO ARCE, SR.
Respondent:
CLERK OF COURT, ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, STATE OF FLORIDA, OKALOOSA COUNTY'S JUDICIAL CORRECTION SERVICES LLC and others
In re: Armando Arce, Sr.
as 26-11794
Petitioner:
In re: ARMANDO ARCE, SR.
Respondent:
CLERK OF COURT, ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, STATE OF FLORIDA, OKALOOSA COUNTY'S JUDICIAL CORRECTION SERVICES LLC and others
Armando Arce, Sr. v. State of Florida, et al
as 26-11446
Respondent:
STATE OF FLORIDA, OKALOOSA COUNTY'S JUDICIAL CORRECTION SERVICES LLC and ANGELA GILBERT, Probation Officer
Petitioner:
ARMANDO ARCE, SR.
ARCE v. STATE OF FLORIDA et al
as 3:2026cv00472
Petitioner:
ARMANDO ARCE
Respondent:
STATE OF FLORIDA, OKALOOSA COUNTY'S JUDICIAL CORRECTION SERVICES LLC and ANGELA GILBERT
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
ARCE v. ARCE
as 3:2025cv02511
Plaintiff:
JENNIFER LYNN ARCE
Defendant:
ARMANDO ARCE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Notice of Removal
ARCE v. STATE OF FLORIDA
as 3:2025cv01348
Plaintiff:
ARMANDO ARCE
Defendant:
STATE OF FLORIDA
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 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.
