District of Oregon Prisoner Petitions Cases

General Cases, Dockets and Filings

Cases filed

Cases 1 - 10 of 2,272
Wells v. Nooth
as 2:2015cv00852
Respondent: Mark Nooth
Petitioner: Leroy Wells
Cause Of Action: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Marsolf v. Nooth et al
as 2:2015cv00850
Petitioner: Timothy Lee Marsolf
Respondent: Mark Nooth, Oregon Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
Cause Of Action: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Lambert v. Hall
as 2:2015cv00847
Respondent: Guy Hall
Petitioner: Christopher Terrell Lambert
Cause Of Action: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Sills v. Koehn et al
as 1:2015cv00811
Respondent: B Koehn, Ellen F. Rosenblum
Petitioner: Gabriel Sills
Cause Of Action: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Reed v. Union County Community Corrections et al
as 2:2015cv00813
Respondent: Ryan Browne, Union County Community Corrections
Petitioner: Kelley P. Reed
Cause Of Action: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Lee v. DBA et al
as 3:2015cv00805
Respondent: Ron Brown, Judge Paula J. Brownhill, Clerks of Clatsop County Circuit Court and others
Petitioner: David-Paul Lee
Cause Of Action: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Flennory v. Nooth
as 2:2015cv00803
Petitioner: Roy Lionel Flennory
Respondent: Mark Nooth
Cause Of Action: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Williams v. Premo
as 6:2015cv00784
Respondent: Jeff Premo
Petitioner: Clint Williams
Cause Of Action: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Benge v. Kroger et al
as 2:2015cv00751
Petitioner: John Sherman Benge
Respondent: Kate Brown, Alaxander R. Gardner, John Kroger
Cause Of Action: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Smith v. Myrick
as 2:2015cv00738
Respondent: John Myrick
Petitioner: Arlen Porter Smith
Cause Of Action: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
1 2 3 4 5 Next

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.