Cases 1 - 10 of 29
Creek v. Weber et al
as 4:2019cv04205
Defendant:
South Dakota Department of Mental Health, Douglas Weber, Dennis Kaemingk and others
Plaintiff:
Clayton Sheldon Creek
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Creek v. (SDDOC) Mental Health Department et al
as 4:2019cv04174
Petitioner:
Clayton Sheldon Creek
Respondent:
The Attorney General of the State of South Dakota and (SDDOC) Mental Health Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 16-3810
Petitioner - Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Creek v. State of South Dakota
as 5:2016cv05086
Petitioner:
Clayton Sheldon Creek
Respondent:
State of South Dakota
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Creek v. United States of America
as 3:2016cv03037
Plaintiff:
Clayton Sheldon Creek
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2016cv03036
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651
Creek v. S.D. Board of Pardons and Paroles et al
as 4:2016cv04063
Petitioner:
Clayton Sheldon Creek
Respondent:
S.D. Board of Pardons and Paroles and Marty J. Jackley
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Clayton Creek v. Dennis Daugaard, et al
as 16-1920
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Clayton Sheldon Creek
Defendant - Appellee:
Dennis Daugaard, Governor of South Dakota, in his individual and official capacity, Dennis Kaemingk, Secretary of Corrections, in his individual and official capacity, Robert Dooley, Chief Warden, South Dakota D.O.C., in his individual and official capacity and others
Creek v. Daugarrd et al
as 3:2016cv03001
Plaintiff:
Clayton Sheldon Creek
Defendant:
Dennis Daugaard, Dennis Kaemingk, Robert Dooley and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Clayton Creek v. Robert Dooley, et al
as 15-3274
Petitioner - Appellant:
Clayton Sheldon Creek
Respondent - Appellee:
Robert Dooley and The Attorney General of the State of South Dakota
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.
