Cases 1 - 10 of 100
Smith v. Dixon
as 3:2026cv00723
Plaintiff:
Stepfon J. Smith
Defendant:
Secretary, DOC Ricky Dixon
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
HENDERSON v. SECRETARY DOC STATE OF FLORIDA
as 5:2025cv00216
Petitioner:
KEITH HENDERSON
Respondent:
SECRETARY DOC STATE OF FLORIDA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Stewart v. Department of Corrections et al
as 2:2025cv00475
Petitioner:
Wakim Stewart
Defendant:
Department of Corrections and Secretary, DOC Ricky Dixon
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
PUGH v. NICHOLS et al
as 5:2025cv00057
Plaintiff:
D'ANGELO J PUGH
Defendant:
MICHAEL G NICHOLS, GAMALIEL PEREZ, SECRETARY DOC and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Save the South Fork Salmon, et al. v. U.S. Forest Service, et al.
as 1:2025cv00086
Plaintiff:
Save the South Fork Salmon, Idaho Conservation League, Idaho Rivers United and others
Defendant:
U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service and others
Intervenor:
Perpetua Resources Idaho, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
Brandon v. Strange, et al.
as 24-4264
Defendant:
STEPHEN SINCLAIR, Director DOC, JOHN CAMPBELL, DOC, LARRY M CONNELS, CMHUS DOC and others
Plaintiff:
MYRON GAYLORD BRANDON
Peter Ferreira v. Secretary, DOC
as 22-14029
Petitioner / Appellant:
PETER W. FERREIRA
Respondent / Appellee:
SECRETARY, DOC
Jeffery Brantley v. Florida Attorney General, et al
as 22-12142
Petitioner / Appellant:
JEFFERY NEIL BRANTLEY
Respondent / Appellee:
FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL and SECRETARY, DOC
Melvin Castellon v. Secretary, DOC
as 22-11081
Petitioner / Appellant:
MELVIN CASTELLON
Respondent / Appellee:
SECRETARY, DOC
Derek Durant v. Secretary, DOC
as 22-10883
Petitioner / Appellant:
DEREK D. DURANT
Respondent / Appellee:
SECRETARY, DOC
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.
