Cases 11 - 20 of 22
MANSFIELD v. Secretary, Department of Corrections et al.
as 6:2012cv00999
Petitioner:
E.B. Mansfield, Jr.
Respondent:
Secretary, Department of Corrections and Attorney General, State of Florida
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Saeku v. Holder et al
as 5:2012ct03041
Plaintiff:
Somsak Saeku
Defendant:
Eric H. Holder, Jr., United States Department of Treasury, Terrence W. Boyle and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SAEKU v. HOLDER et al
as 1:2012cv00146
Plaintiff:
SOMSAK SAEKU
Defendant:
ERIC HIMPTON HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, TERRENCE W. BOYLE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Gaddy v. Solis et al
as 4:2011cv05568
Plaintiff:
Michael Gaddy
Defendant:
A. Solis, N. Walker, E.B. Sherman and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Reginald Scott v. John Salazar
as 10-55133
Petitioner - Appellant:
REGINALD SCOTT, AKA Reginald E.B. Scott
Respondent - Appellee:
JOHN F. SALAZAR, Warden
Dukes v. Jones et al
as 2:2009cv02056
Plaintiff:
Melvin Dukes
Defendant:
E.B. Jones, Dumante and Brown
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Dukes v. Muniz et al
as 2:2009cv01952
Petitioner:
Melvin Dukes
Respondent:
Muniz, Matayo, Warfield and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Barefoot v. Holding et al
as 5:2008hc02179
Petitioner:
Charles Robert Barefoot, Jr.
Respondent:
George E.B. Holding and Eric David Goulian
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
Barefoot v. Goulian et al
as 5:2008ct03162
Plaintiff:
Charles Robert Barefoot, Jr.
Defendant:
Eric David Goulian, George E.B. Holding, Arthur F. Beeler and others
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
Barefoot v. Holding et al
as 5:2008ct03159
Plaintiff:
Charles Robert Barefoot, Jr.
Defendant:
George E.B. Holding, Eric David Goulian, Steven Babbits and others
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
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.
