U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon Prisoner Petitions Cases
Cases 1 - 10 of 10,658
Gregory v. Mitchell
as 1:2025cv00697
Plaintiff:
Andrew Wyatt Gregory
Defendant:
Sheriff Shane Mitchell
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Jones v. Etan
as 2:2025cv00683
Plaintiff:
Dylan Wayne Jones
Defendant:
Superintendant Jamie Miller Etan
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hale v. Darby et al
as 3:2025cv00689
Plaintiff:
Harlan James Hale
Defendant:
Lt. Darby, Corey Fhuere, Dennis Stahlnecker and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Newcomb v. Fhuere
as 6:2025cv00676
Petitioner:
Shawn Michael Newcomb
Respondent:
Corey Fhuere
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Weathers v. Marion County Sheriff's Dept.
as 3:2025cv00675
Plaintiff:
Rich T. Weathers, Jr.
Defendant:
Marion County Sheriff's Dept.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hardie-Brazille v. Lane County Sheriffs Office et al
as 6:2025cv00670
Plaintiff:
Zachary D. Hardie-Brazille
Defendant:
Lane County Sheriffs Office and Oregon Department of Corrections
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Ray v. Garton et al
as 6:2025cv00678
Plaintiff:
Jasson Ray
Defendant:
Sheriff Mark Garton and Polk County Health
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Ingram v. Miller
as 2:2025cv00665
Petitioner:
Nicholas Ingram
Respondent:
Jamie Miller
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hampton
as 6:2025cv00667
Petitioner:
Jevauhn Marcel Hampton
Respondent:
State of Oregon
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hillier v. Smyth et al
as 1:2025cv00661
Plaintiff:
Seth Hillier
Defendant:
Jordan Smyth, Staci Rogers and Kyle McClung
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
