Cases 1 - 10 of 510
Bowden v. Reddish et al
as 3:2024cv00058
Plaintiff:
Elijah Tamar Bowden
Defendant:
Reddish, Lester Fernandez, H.L. Johnston and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Wesolek v. Prock et al
as 3:2023cv01283
Plaintiff:
Steven Allan Wesolek
Defendant:
FNU Prock, John Doe and Mark Inch
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Wesolek v. Prock et al
as 8:2023cv02438
Plaintiff:
Steven Allan Wesolek
Defendant:
FNU Prock, John Doe and Mark Inch
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jonchuck v. Inch et al
as 1:2023cv23198
Plaintiff:
John Nicholas Jonchuck
Defendant:
Mark Inch and John Doe
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 State Prisoner Civil Rights
WILLIAMS v. INCH et al
as 4:2023cv00359
Plaintiff:
TYRON DEBARON WILLIAMS
Defendant:
MARK INCH, Z CULPEPPER, T BOWDEN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jonchuck v. Florida Department of Corrections et al
as 6:2023cv01247
Plaintiff:
John N. Jonchuck, Jr.
Defendant:
Florida Department of Corrections, Mark Inch and Correctional Officer C.O. Gotto
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
WASHINGTON v. DYAS et al
as 5:2023cv00123
Plaintiff:
SEDRICK WASHINGTON
Defendant:
COLE DYAS, EARL B KNOBLES, JR, RICKY MAZINGO and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Adams v. Bailey et al
as 3:2023cv00431
Plaintiff:
Lee Frank Adams
Defendant:
C. Bailey, Donald Davis and Mark Inch
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
RUFFIN v. DIXON
as 5:2023cv00053
Petitioner:
MICHAEL RUFFIN
Respondent:
MARK INCH and RICKY DIXON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Andrews v. Cicarrno et al
as 3:2023cv00088
Plaintiff:
Byron Andrews
Defendant:
Sgt. Cicarrno, M. Herring, Mark Inch and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner 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.
