Cases 1 - 10 of 13
Wooden v. Barlow-Hust
as 1:2023cv00465
Plaintiff:
Vaughen Maurice Wooden
Defendant:
Noel Barlow-Hust
Petitioner:
Vaughan Maurice Wooden
Respondent:
Warden Noel Barlow-Hust
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Crutcher v. Barlow-Hust, et al.
as 23-1975
Petitioner / Appellant:
GWENDA LYNN CRUTCHER
Defendant / Appellee:
NOEL BARLOW-HUST, WARDEN, Warden
Respondent / Appellee:
STATE OF IDAHO and WARDEN WOODLAND
Goodrick v. Tewalt et al
as 1:2021cv00487
Plaintiff:
Dan Goodrick
Defendant:
Director IDOC Josh Tewalt, Bree Derrick, Ross Castleton and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Pamela Pringle v. Brent Cardall, et al
as 19-16914
Defendant / Appellee:
BRENT CARDALL, SANDY JONES, COUNTY OF YOLO and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
PAMELA DENISE PRINGLE
Storm v. McClusky et al
as 1:2019cv00214
Defendant:
Campbell, Board of Corrections, Ross Caselton and others
Plaintiff:
Rickie Storm
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Kesling v. Tewalt, et al
as 1:2019cv00178
Defendant:
Henry Atencio, Stephanie Trobock, Noel Barlow-Hust and others
Plaintiff:
Shawn M Kesling
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Pringle v. Gentry et al
as 1:2018cv00347
Defendant:
Cindy McDonald, Judy Mesick, Shannon Cluney and others
Plaintiff:
Pamela Denise Pringle
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Pringle v. Cardall et al
as 2:2018cv02035
Defendant:
Cindy McDonald, Brent Cardall, Sandy Jones and others
Plaintiff:
Pamela Denise Pringle
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Pringle v. Cardall et al
as 2:2018at01231
Plaintiff:
Pamela Denise Pringle
Defendant:
Brent Cardall, County of Yolo, Yolo County Probation Department and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Pamela Pringle v. Amanda Gentry, et al
as 18-16038
Plaintiff - Appellant:
PAMELA DENISE PRINGLE
Defendant - Appellee:
AMANDA GENTRY, SHANNON CLUNEY, NOEL BARLOW-HUST 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.
