Cases 1 - 10 of 12
Lacey Sivak v. Jay Christensen
as 23-35453
Petitioner / Appellant:
LACEY MARK SIVAK
Respondent / Appellee:
JAY CHRISTENSEN, Warden
Lacey Sivak v. USDC-IDB
as 23-70064
Not Classified By Court:
In re: LACEY MARK SIVAK and JAY CHRISTENSEN, Warden
Petitioner:
LACEY MARK SIVAK
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO, BOISE
Lacey Sivak v. USDC-IDB
as 23-70055
Not Classified By Court:
In re: LACEY MARK SIVAK and JAY CHRISTENSEN, Warden
Petitioner:
LACEY MARK SIVAK
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO, BOISE
Lacey Sivak v. Jay Christensen
as 23-35099
Petitioner / Appellant:
LACEY MARK SIVAK
Respondent / Appellee:
JAY CHRISTENSEN, Warden
Lacey Sivak v. USDC-IDB
as 22-70273
Not Classified By Court:
In re: LACEY MARK SIVAK and JAY CHRISTENSEN, Warden
Petitioner:
LACEY MARK SIVAK
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO, BOISE
Lacey Sivak v. USDC-IDB
as 22-70190
Not Classified By Court:
In re: LACEY MARK SIVAK and JAY CHRISTENSEN, Warden
Petitioner:
LACEY MARK SIVAK
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO, BOISE
Lacey Sivak v. Jay Christensen
as 22-35470
Petitioner / Appellant:
LACEY MARK SIVAK
Respondent / Appellee:
JAY CHRISTENSEN, Warden
Lacey Sivak v. USDC-IDB
as 22-70071
Not Classified By Court:
In re: LACEY MARK SIVAK and JAY CHRISTENSEN, Warden
Petitioner:
LACEY MARK SIVAK
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO, BOISE
Noah Schroder v. Jay Christensen, et al
as 22-35006
Plaintiff / Appellant:
NOAH SCHRODER
Defendant / Appellee:
JAY CHRISTENSEN, Warden, BON JOVI, Sergeant, BURRUS, Officer and others
Defendant:
RONA SIEGERT, REESE, PA and CHRIS JOHNSON
Shawn Sheltra v. Jay Christensen, et al
as 21-35374
Defendant / Appellee:
FRAHS, Cpl., TAYLOR, Sgt., JAY CHRISTENSEN, Warden and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
SHAWN SHELTRA
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.
