Evans v. Franke et al
| Michael James Evans |
| Corrections Officer Alleman, Lt. Boston, James Deacon, Steven Franke, Sgt. Herron, Corrections Officer Johnson, Craig Jones, S. Justus, Don Mills, Capt. Nichols, Corrections Officer Peterson, Capt. Real, V. Reynolds and Lt. Roberts |
| 3:2011cv00272 |
| March 3, 2011 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon |
| Portland (3) Office |
| Janice M. Stewart |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
415
Opinion and Order signed on 3/30/2021 by Magistrate Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai: Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 398 ) and defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 404 ) are DENIED. A trial date in this case will be set to coincide with Case Nos. 2:16-cv-00928-MK and 2:17-cv-01162-MK once dispositive motions in those cases are resolved. **6 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL** (Michael Evans, Prisoner ID: 11668134) (jk)
|
|
Filing
360
Opinion and Order: Plaintiff's Fourth Claim for Relief Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process) (Against Defendant Deacon) is dismissed with prejudice because amendment would be futile. Plaintiff's Third Claim for Relief Violation of the First Amendment (Retaliation) (Against Defendant Olvera) will proceed through litigation. Signed on 5/21/2019 by Magistrate Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai. (jk)
|
|
Filing
309
ORDER: Denying as Moot Motion to Dismiss 301 ; Denying as Moot Motion for Extension of Time 302 ; Denying as Moot Motion to Amend/Correct 304 ; Denying as Moot Motion for Extension of Time 305 ; Denying Motion for Leave 306 . Plainti ff shall file an amended complaint within fourteen days of the date of this Order. Failure to follow this Court's orders may result in sanctions, up to and including dismissal of this lawsuit with prejudice. The parties are ordered to submit a proposed case schedule within fourteen days of the date of this Order. Signed on 2/26/2018 by Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo. (plb)
|
|
Filing
263
OPINION AND ORDER: The following motions are DENIED: (1) Plaintiffs Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (docket # 235 ), (2) Plaintiffs Revised Motion for Reconsideration (docket # 246 ); and (3) Plaintiffs Motion to File Supplemental Claims (docket # 254 ). This court reaffirms its prior rulings, as set forth in the Opinion and Order dated January 20, 2015 (docket # 226 ). Based on the report by the mediator of a settlement on the one remaining claim (Fourth Claim against Deacon), defendants shall submit an appropriate form of Judgment in 14 days. Signed on 2/12/16 by Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart. (jlr)
|
|
Filing
226
OPINION AND ORDER: Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First and Second Claims 85 ; Granting in Part (Third Claim) and Denying in Part (Fourth Claim) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 87 ; Granting in Part (Fourth Claim as to liability) and Denying in Part (First, Second, and Third Claims) Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment 159 . Signed on 1/20/15 by Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart. (ST)
|
|
Filing
223
ORDER: Plaintiff's pro se Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction 216 is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 4/8/2014 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (gw)
|
|
Filing
153
ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order/Motion for Preliminary Injunction 134 is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 2/13/2013 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (gw)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Oregon District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
