Cases 1 - 10 of 24
Clyne v. Carlin
as 3:2023cv00243
Petitioner:
Heath Thomas Clyne
Respondent:
T Carlin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Clyne v. Lee, et al.
as 3:2023cv00103
Plaintiff:
Heath Thomas Clyne
Defendant:
Ben Lee, Seth Radiner, Jeremy Wallingford and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Clyne v. The Idaho Dept. of Corrections et al
as 1:2022cv00480
Plaintiff:
Heath Thomas Clyne
Defendant:
The Idaho Dept. of Corrections, Community Corrections, Idaho District 4 Probation and Parole and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Clyne v. Deputy Warden McKay et al
as 1:2022cv00447
Plaintiff:
Heath Thomas Clyne
Defendant:
Deputy Warden McKay, Deputy Warden Brets, Correctional Sgt. Quinn and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Clyne v. Warden Valley
as 1:2022cv00455
Petitioner:
Heath Thomas Clyne
Respondent:
Warden Valley
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Clyne v. Valley, et al.
as 1:2022cv00448
Plaintiff:
Heath Thomas Clyne
Defendant:
Warden Randy Valley, Deputy Warden McKay, Deputy Warden Brets and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Heath v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 1:2022cv00393
Petitioner:
Molly Ann Heath
Respondent:
Commissioner of Social Security
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWW)
Heath v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 1:2020cv00471
Respondent:
Commissioner of Social Security
Petitioner:
Molly Ann Heath
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
Clyne v. Page
as 1:2018cv00023
Petitioner:
Heath Thomas Clyne
Respondent:
C Page
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Clyne v. Ada County Sheriff et al
as 1:2017cv00492
Plaintiff:
Heath Thomas Clyne
Defendant:
Ada County Sheriff, Bannock County Sheriff, Nampa Police Department and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
