Cases 1 - 10 of 48
Craig Jackson v. Secretary, Florida Department, et al
as 19-11672
Defendant / Appellee:
DENIS VILCHEZ, M.D., CENTURION MEDICAL, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
CRAIG A. JACKSON
TUCKER v. JONES
as 5:2017cv00280
Plaintiff:
WAYNE WILLIAM TUCKER
Defendant:
JULIE L JONES, RICK SCOTT, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
JACKSON v. JONES
as 3:2017cv00791
Plaintiff:
CRAIG A JACKSON
Defendant:
JULIE L JONES, JIMMY COKER, CENTURION MEDICAL DEPARTMENT and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
CROOKS v. JONES et al
as 3:2017cv00350
Plaintiff:
THERENCE W CROOKS
Defendant:
JULIE JONES, JIMMY COKER, COURTNEY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
JACKSON v. JONES et al.
as 3:2016cv00551
Plaintiff:
JAMES LEE JACKSON
Defendant:
JULIE L JONES, CORIZON HEALTH INC, JOHN DOE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Frederick Ives v. Michelle Nichols, et al
as 16-15342
Plaintiff - Appellant:
FREDERICK W. IVES
Defendant - Appellee:
MICHELLE NICHOLS, Nurse, WARDEN, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and others
Jose Garcia v. Florida Department of Correcti, et al
as 16-15235
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JOSE RAFAEL GARCIA
Defendant - Appellee:
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, W. D. RUMMEL, SANTA ROSA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION ANNEX and others
Javado Thompson v. M. Nichols, et al
as 16-11236
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JAVADO AUDRIC THOMPSON
Defendant - Appellee:
M. NICHOLS, ARNP and W. D. RUMMEL, MD CHO
RUIZ v. RUMMEL et al
as 3:2016cv00017
Petitioner:
Carlos Ruiz
Respondent:
W. D. Rummel, Nichols and RODRIGO VIVAS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Matthew Thompson v. John Long, et al
as 15-14676
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MATTHEW JOHN THOMPSON
Defendant - Appellee:
JOHN LONG, AWP ASSISTANT WARDEN, DAWN SMITH, HSA MEDICAL SERVICE DIRECTOR, EBONY O. HARVEY, II SC and others
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.
