Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
7 opinions for “Joshua Kelly v. Timothy Wengler”
Joshua Kelly v. Timothy Wenglerpublic domain
OPINION W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs-Appellees (“Plaintiffs”) brought a putative class action in the District of Idaho under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants-Appellants Timothy Wengler and the Corrections Corporation of America, Inc. (collectively “CCA”), alleging that CCA staffed the Idaho Corrections Center (“ICC”) with an inadequate numbe
Kelly v. Wenglerpublic domain
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER (Filed Under Seal) DAVID 0. CARTER, District Judge. Before the Court is a Motion for a Contempt-Phase Discovery Plan (Dkt. 40, 40, “Motion for Discovery”) filed by Plaintiffs, and a Motion for an Order to Show Cause Why Defendants Should not be Held in Contempt (Dkt. 39, “Motion for an OSC”). There is also a separate issue, to be resolved in a later or
Kelly v. Wenglerpublic domain
ORDER ON MOTION TO UNSEAL DAVID 0. CARTER, District Judge. Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Unseal (Dkt. 50), seeking to unseal two motions and accompanying documents, as well as the Court’s orders resolving those motions. See Motion to Unseal at 1, 3. This Motion to Unseal is reasonably understood to cover Docket Entries 39-56, and 58. All the documents relate to Plaintiffs’ contention
Kelly v. Wenglerpublic domain
ORDER REGARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS DAVID O. CARTER, District Judge. Before the Court are the Plaintiffs’ motions for attorneys’ fees and costs. See Dkts. 96,102. The Court finds this matter suitable for decision without oral argument. After considering the moving and responding papers, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motions. I. Factual and Procedural Background
Kelly v. Wenglerpublic domain
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DAVID 0. CARTER, District Judge. INTRODUCTION Before the Court is the issue of whether Defendants Timothy Wengler and Corrections Corporation of America (“Wengler,” “CCA,” and collectively “Defendants”) should be found in civil contempt for violating the Settlement Agreement (Dkt. 25, Ex. A, hereafter “Settlement Agreement”) by which the Parties agreed to
Victor Parsons v. Charles Ryanpublic domain
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VICTOR ANTONIO PARSONS; SHAWN No. 18-16358 JENSEN; STEPHEN SWARTZ; SONIA RODRIGUEZ; CHRISTINA VERDUZCO; D.C. No. JACKIE THOMAS; JEREMY SMITH; 2:12-cv-00601- ROBERT CARRASCO GAMEZ, JR.; ROS MARYANNE CHISHOLM; DESIREE LICCI; JOSEPH HEFNER; JOSHUA POLSON; ARIZONA CENTER FOR DISABILITY LAW; CHARLOTTE WELLS, on behalf of themselves and all ot
Obergefell v. Hodgespublic domain
Justice KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court. The Constitution promises libertyto all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity. The petitioners in these cases seek to find that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same te