Cases 1 - 10 of 100
Dixon v. Arch Insurance Company et al
as 2:2026cv03467
Plaintiff:
Tanisha Reeves Dixon
Defendant:
Arch Insurance Company, John Doe and MD Jane Doe
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Lewis v. Dixon et al
as 3:2026cv02407
Plaintiff:
Samuel Jerome Lewis
Defendant:
Ricky Dixon, A Matthews, A. Johns and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2026cv01913
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
MUNCHEL v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
as 1:2026cv03229
Plaintiff:
ERIC MUNCHEL
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, MERRICK GARLAND, MATTHEW GRAVES and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2671 Federal Tort Claims Act
Gevas v. Sy et al
as 3:2026cv50420
Plaintiff:
David Gevas
Defendant:
Dr. Larry O. Sy, Monica Fuller, Andrea Tack and others
:
Scanning Dixon and Service List
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
DIXON v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION
as 2:2026cv01943
Plaintiff:
GREGORY DIXON
Defendant:
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 2 (a) Fair Labor Standards Act
Dixon v. Warden, FCC Coleman (Sumter)
as 5:2026cv00652
Petitioner:
Donovan Dave Dixon
Respondent:
Warden, FCC Coleman
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Sonderling v. Perry et al
as 5:2026cv00671
Plaintiff:
Keith E Sonderling
Defendant:
Tracey Dixon Perry and DIXON PAVING INC.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
CASTRO-MENDEZ v. COMERFORD
as 3:2026cv04995
Petitioner:
VICTOR CASTRO-MENDEZ
Respondent:
RICKY DIXON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2026cv00938
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
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.
