S.D., et al. v. Reese, et al.
| S.D., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and J.F. |
| MIKE REESE, RYAN LEGORE, JOHN DOES, 1-5, MARK NOOTH, ERIN REYES, STATE OF OREGON, by and through the Oregon Department of Corrections and JEREMY WAGNER |
| 26-4872 |
| July 30, 2026 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Prisoner-Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 17, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 25
UPDATED OPINION (Daniel P. COLLINS, Lawrence VANDYKE, Eric C. TUNG) Attached reformatted opinion. [Entered: 09/24/2026 03:39 PM]
|
|
Filing 24
MANDATE ISSUED Daniel P. COLLINS, Lawrence VANDYKE, Eric C. TUNG. The judgment of this Court, entered 9/17/2026, takes effect this date. [Entered: 09/17/2026 10:27 AM]
|
|
Filing 23
OPINION (Daniel P. COLLINS, Lawrence VANDYKE, Eric C. TUNG) PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION VACATED; CLASS DECERTIFIED; CASE REMANDED; MANDATE ISSUED FORTHWITH. Opinion by Judge Tung. FILED AND ENTERED JUDGMENT. [Entered: 09/17/2026 09:42 AM]
|
|
Filing 22
CLERK ACTION: Reply Brief submitted at DE 21 by Appellants is filed. No paper copies are required. [Entered: 08/26/2026 02:44 PM]
|
|
Filing 21
REPLY BRIEF submitted for filing by Appellant Mike Reese, Appellant Ryan LeGore, Appellant Mark Nooth, Appellant Erin Reyes, Appellant State of Oregon, Appellant Jeremy Wagner. [Entered: 08/26/2026 02:22 PM]
|
|
Filing 20
ADDED Counsel for Appellee Abby Greenfield [Entered: 08/21/2026 10:01 AM]
|
|
Filing 19
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Abby Greenfield for Appellee J.F., Appellee S.D.. [Entered: 08/20/2026 07:35 PM]
|
|
Filing 18
CLERK ACTION: Answering Brief submitted at DE 17 by Appellees is filed. No paper copies are required. [Entered: 08/20/2026 04:48 PM]
|
|
Filing 17
ANSWERING BRIEF submitted for filing by Appellee S.D., Appellee J.F..--[COURT UPDATE: Corrected PDF (corrected cover page) attached as of 8/27/2026, REPLACING original attachment] [Entered: 08/20/2026 03:32 PM] [Edited: 08/27/2026 08:31 AM]
|
|
Filing 16
ORDER FILED. Daniel P. COLLINS, Lawrence VANDYKE, Eric C. TUNG The district court here granted a mandatory injunction that required the State of Oregon to [i]mmediately end the categorical housing of transgender women in mens [prison] facilities and (among other things) to apply a presumption of placement consistent with each persons gender identity, absent a documented and articulable security justification. Amended Order on Prelim. Inj., D.Ct. Dkt. 66, at 2. The State asks us to stay that injunction pending the States appeal. For the reasons discussed below, we grant the stay.....We also grant a stay of the district court proceedings pending appeal. The district court has already ordered Defendants to produce information relating to the members of the class that it certified. See D.Ct. Dkt. 69. But because Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits and it is thus likely that the provisional class was improperly granted, Dickinson, 174 F.4th at 650, such discovery is not warranted, and we therefore stay the district court proceedings pending appeal. DEFENDANTS MOTION IS GRANTED. (SEE ORDER FOR FULL TEXT) [Entered: 08/20/2026 02:01 PM]
|
|
Filing 15
CLERK ACTION: Opening Brief and Excerpts of Record submitted at DE 13, DE 14 by Appellants are filed. No paper copies are required. [Entered: 08/10/2026 04:52 PM]
|
|
Filing 14
EXCERPTS OF RECORD submitted for filing by Appellant Mike Reese, Appellant Ryan LeGore, Appellant Mark Nooth, Appellant Erin Reyes, Appellant State of Oregon, Appellant Jeremy Wagner. [Entered: 08/10/2026 04:46 PM]
|
|
Filing 13
OPENING BRIEF submitted for filing by Appellant Mike Reese, Appellant Ryan LeGore, Appellant Mark Nooth, Appellant Erin Reyes, Appellant State of Oregon, Appellant Jeremy Wagner. [Entered: 08/10/2026 04:41 PM]
|
|
Filing 12
REPLY to Response to Motion to Stay Lower Court or Agency Proceedings, Order, or Judgment (DE 11) filed by Appellant Mike Reese, Appellant Ryan LeGore, Appellant Mark Nooth, Appellant Erin Reyes, Appellant State of Oregon, Appellant Jeremy Wagner. [Entered: 08/07/2026 03:16 PM]
|
|
Filing 11
RESPONSE to Motion to Stay Lower Court or Agency Proceedings, Order, or Judgment (DE 4) filed by Appellee S.D., Appellee J.F.. [Entered: 08/05/2026 04:08 PM]
|
|
Filing 10
ACKNOWLEDGMENT of hearing notice filed by John David Burgess for Appellee S.D., Appellee J.F.. Hearing in Pasadena - Courtroom 1 in Pasadena, on 8/27/2026 1:00:00 PM. Filer argument time: By myself. (Argument minutes: [-]). Special accommodations: No. Filer admission status: I certify that I am admitted to practice before this Court. [Entered: 08/05/2026 12:21 PM]
|
|
Filing 9
ACKNOWLEDGMENT of hearing notice filed by Ariel T. Ashtamker for Appellant Mike Reese, Appellant Ryan LeGore, Appellant Mark Nooth, Appellant Erin Reyes, Appellant State of Oregon, Appellant Jeremy Wagner. Hearing in Pasadena - Courtroom 1 in Pasadena, on 8/27/2026 1:00:00 PM. Filer argument time: By myself. (Argument minutes: [-]). Special accommodations: No. Filer admission status: I certify that I am admitted to practice before this Court. [Entered: 08/04/2026 12:33 PM]
|
|
Filing 8
MEDIATION QUESTIONNAIRE filed by Appellant Mike Reese, Appellant Ryan LeGore, Appellant Mark Nooth, Appellant Erin Reyes, Appellant State of Oregon, Appellant Jeremy Wagner. To submit pertinent confidential information directly to the Circuit Mediators, please email #[email protected] and include the case name and number in the subject line. Confidential submissions may include any information relevant to mediation of the case and settlement potential, including, but not limited to, settlement history, ongoing or potential settlement discussions, non-litigated party related issues, other pending actions, and timing considerations that may impact mediation efforts. [Entered: 08/04/2026 12:23 PM]
|
|
Filing 7
NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT on Thursday, August 27, 2026 - 1:00 P.M. - Courtroom 1 - Scheduled Location: Pasadena CA View the Oral Argument Calendar for your case #here. NOTE: Although your case is currently scheduled for oral argument, the panel may decide to submit the case on the briefs instead. See Fed. R. App. P. 34. Absent further order of the court, if the court does determine that oral argument is required in this case, you are expected to appear in person at the Courthouse. If an in person appearance would pose a hardship, you must file a motion for permission to appear remotely by video, using ACMS filing type Motion to Appear Remotely for Oral Argument. Such a motion must be filed within 7 days of this notice, absent exigent circumstances. Please note that if you do file a motion to appear remotely, the court strongly prefers video over telephone appearance. Therefore, if you wish to appear remotely by telephone you will need to justify that request in your motion and receive explicit permission to do so. Be sure to review the #GUIDELINES for important information about your hearing. If you are the specific attorney or self-represented party who will be arguing, use the ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF HEARING NOTICE filing type in ACMS no later than 28 days before the hearing date. No form or other attachment is required. If you will not be arguing, do not file an acknowledgment of hearing notice. [26-4872] [Entered: 08/04/2026 12:01 PM]
|
|
Filing 6
[FILED IN ERROR; DUPLICATIVE OF DOCKET ENTRY NO. 5]: ORDER FILED. COLLINS, VANDYKE, and TUNG, Circuit Judges: The court has received Defendants-Appellants emergency motion for stay pending appeal, which includes a request for an immediate administrative stay of the district courts preliminary injunction and of further proceedings in the district court pending full review of the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal. Dkt. Nos. 3, 4. The request for a temporary administrative stay is GRANTED. An administrative stay is intended to minimize harm while an appellate court deliberates and lasts no longer than necessary to make an intelligent decision on the motion for stay pending appeal. United States v. Texas, 144 S. Ct. 797, 798-99 (2024) (Barrett, J., concurring). An administrative stay does not constitute in any way a decision as to the merits of the motion for a stay pending appeal. Doe #1 v. Trump, 944 F.3d 1222, 1223 (9th Cir. 2019). We defer weighing the Nken factors until the motion for stay pending appeal is considered. Natl Urb. League v. Ross, 977 F.3d 698, 702 (9th Cir. 2020) (footnote omitted) (citing Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 426 (2009)). Here, an administrative stay is appropriate to maintain the status quo. Accordingly, the district courts amended order on preliminary injunction (D.Ct. Dkt. 66), and further proceedings in the district court, are stayed pending further order of this court. The court orders expedited briefing for the emergency motion for stay. The response is due August 5, 2026 at 5:00 PM PDT. The optional reply is due August 7, 2026 at 5:00 PM PDT. The court expedites briefing for the appeal. The opening brief is due August 10, 2026. The answering brief is due August 20, 2026. The optional reply brief is due August 26, 2026. No extensions will be granted absent exceptional and compelling circumstances. Oral argument on the merits will be held in Pasadena and will be set by separate order. [COURT UPDATE: noted that order is duplicative of DE 5 and resent NDA] [Entered: 08/03/2026 09:08 AM] [Edited: 08/03/2026 01:54 PM]
|
|
Filing 5
ORDER FILED. Daniel P. COLLINS, Lawrence VANDYKE, Eric C. TUNG. The court has received Defendants-Appellants emergency motion for stay pending appeal, which includes a request for an immediate administrative stay of the district courts preliminary injunction and of further proceedings in the district court pending full review of the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal. Dkt. Nos. 3, 4. The request for a temporary administrative stay is GRANTED. An administrative stay is intended to minimize harm while an appellate court deliberates and lasts no longer than necessary to make an intelligent decision on the motion for stay pending appeal. United States v. Texas, 144 S. Ct. 797, 798-99 (2024) (Barrett, J., concurring). An administrative stay does not constitute in any way a decision as to the merits of the motion for a stay pending appeal. Doe #1 v. Trump, 944 F.3d 1222, 1223 (9th Cir. 2019). We defer weighing the Nken factors until the motion for stay pending appeal is considered. Natl Urb. League v. Ross, 977 F.3d 698, 702 (9th Cir. 2020) (footnote omitted) (citing Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 426 (2009)). Here, an administrative stay is appropriate to maintain the status quo. Accordingly, the district courts amended order on preliminary injunction (D.Ct. Dkt. 66), and further proceedings in the district court, are stayed pending further order of this court. The court orders expedited briefing for the emergency motion for stay. The response is due August 5, 2026 at 5:00 PM PDT. The optional reply is due August 7, 2026 at 5:00 PM PDT. The court expedites briefing for the appeal. The opening brief is due August 10, 2026. The answering brief is due August 20, 2026. The optional reply brief is due August 26, 2026. No extensions will be granted absent exceptional and compelling circumstances. Oral argument on the merits will be held in Pasadena and will be set by separate order. [Entered: 08/01/2026 05:22 PM]
|
|
Filing 4
MOTION to Stay Lower Court or Agency Proceedings/Order/Judgment filed by Appellant Mike Reese, Appellant Ryan LeGore, Appellant Mark Nooth, Appellant Erin Reyes, Appellant State of Oregon, Appellant Jeremy Wagner. [Court entered filing, PDF from DE 3] [Entered: 07/31/2026 03:52 PM]
|
|
Filing 3
Emergency MOTION Circuit Rule 27-3 Certificate filed by Appellant Mike Reese, Appellant Ryan LeGore, Appellant Mark Nooth, Appellant Erin Reyes, Appellant State of Oregon, Appellant Jeremy Wagner. [Entered: 07/31/2026 03:38 PM]
|
|
Filing 2
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SCHEDULE NOTICE. Preliminary Injunction Opening Brief Due (Appellant) 8/27/2026, Mediation Questionnaire due (Appellant) 8/4/2026, Preliminary Injunction Answering Brief Due (Appellee) 9/24/2026. For appeal no. 26-4872, 6:25-cv-01726-CL.All briefs shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1. Failure of the petitioner(s)/appellant(s) to comply with this briefing schedule will result in automatic dismissal of the appeal. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. [Entered: 07/30/2026 09:54 AM]
|
|
Filing 1
CASE OPENED. A copy of your notice of appeal / petition filed in 6:25-cv-01726-CL has been received in the Clerk's office of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals docket number 26-4872 has been assigned to this case. All communications with the court must indicate this Court of Appeals docket number. Please carefully review the docket to ensure the name(s) and contact information are correct. It is your responsibility to alert the court if your contact information changes. Resources Available For more information about case processing and to assist you in preparing your brief, please review the Case Opening Information (for #attorneys and #pro se litigants) and review the #Appellate Practice Guide. Attorneys should consider contacting the court's #Appellate Mentoring Program for help with the brief and argument. [Entered: 07/30/2026 09:47 AM]
|
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
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.
