Cases 1 - 10 of 12
Shawn Kesling v. Melisa Becirovic, et al
as 20-35972
Defendant / Appellee:
JOSH TEWALT, as Director of the Idaho Department of Corrections, TIMOTHY R. MCKAY, in his official capacity, JOHN DOES, 1-4 and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
SHAWN M KESLING
KESLING v. STATE OF FLORIDA
as 1:2020cv00143
Respondent:
SADIE DARNELL
Petitioner:
SHAWN M KESLING
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Kesling v. Becirovic et al
as 1:2019cv00352
Defendant:
Melisa Becirovic, State of Idaho, Jay Christensen and others
Plaintiff:
Shawn M Kesling
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Shawn Kesling v. Henry Atencio, et al
as 19-35645
Defendant / Appellee:
TIMOTHY REED MCKAY, HENRY ATENCIO, Former Director, Idaho Department of Corrections, BRETT PHILLIPS and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
SHAWN M KESLING
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
Kesling v. Atencio
as 1:2018cv00568
Plaintiff:
Shawn M Kesling
Defendant:
Henry Atencio
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Kesling v. Wingrove et al
as 1:2018cv00540
Defendant:
Ada County Sheriff's Office, Ada County Public Defender's Office, Abraham Wingrove and others
Plaintiff:
Shawn M Kesling
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Kesling v. Corrections Corporation of America et al
as 1:2012cv00599
Plaintiff:
Shawn M Kesling
Defendant:
Corrections Corporation of America, Idaho Department of Corrections, Tim Higgins and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Kesling v. Ada County Sheriff's Office
as 1:2012cv00075
Plaintiff:
Shawn M Kesling
Defendant:
Ada County Sheriff's Office
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Shawn Kesling v. R. Jernigan, et al
as 11-15786
Plaintiff - Appellant:
SHAWN M. KESLING
Defendant - Appellee:
R. JERNIGAN, D. L. DOBY, Seargent/Shift Supervisor, WARDEN 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.
