Dillon et al v. Clackamas County et al
Plaintiff: William Dillon, Scott Vincent Graue and David Michael Hodges
Defendant: Clackamas County and Craig Roberts
Case Number: 3:2014cv00820
Filed: May 18, 2014
Court: US District Court for the District of Oregon
Office: Portland (3) Office
Presiding Judge: Janice M. Stewart
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Other
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
May 19, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 225 ORDER - Plaintiffs timely filed objections (ECF 223 ), to which Defendants responded. ECF 224 . Plaintiffs object to the entirety of Judge You's Findings and Recommendation. The Court has reviewed Judge You's Findings and Recommendation de novo and adopts them. The Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 210 ) and DISMISSES this case with prejudice. Signed on 5/19/2020 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
December 9, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 217 ORDER - The Court has reviewed de novo Plaintiff's objections (ECF 207 ). For the reasons stated by Judge You, the Court ADOPTS Judge You's Findings and Recommendation (ECF 198 ). Defendants' Motion to Decertify the Class (EC F 177 ) is GRANTED. Within 14 days, Plaintiffs shall prepare a draft notice of decertification and submit that draft to Judge You for her review and approval before sending the final notice to the class. Signed on 12/9/2019 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
July 23, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 160 ORDER - The Court ADOPTS Judge You's Findings and Recommendation, ECF 148 -1. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (ECF 127 ) is DENIED; Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 58 ) is GRANTED as to p laintiffs' claims for alleged constitutional violations based on the emergency shakedown search of October 10, 2012 and GRANTED as to all claims under the Eighth amendment. Otherwise, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 58 ) is DE NIED. Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify the Class (ECF 79 ) is GRANTED as to Class One, but only as to the Fourth Amendment claims of male inmates at the CCJ who underwent return-from-court visual strip searches between September 25, 2012, and the date in May 2013 on which the County installed privacy panels in CCJ's hallway. Plaintiffs William Dillon, Scott Graue, David Hodges, and Albert Love should be appointed as class representatives of Class One. Additionally, Leonard Berman should be appointed as class counsel. In all other respects, the motion to certify is DENIED. Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF 82 ) is DENIED. Signed on 7/23/2018 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
April 21, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 102 ORDER - No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Judge You's Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge You's Findings and Recommendation, ECF 95 . Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint/Petition (ECF 77 ) is DENIED. Signed on 4/21/2017 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
December 2, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 28 ORDER - As no party has made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Judge Stewart's Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accord ingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Stewart's Findings and Recommendation, Dkt. 24 . Defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. 9 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (Dkt. 19 ) is GRANTED, but Plaintiffs are ordered to file an amended complaint which complies with Judge Stewart's rulings on Defendants' motion to dismiss. Signed on 12/2/2014 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US 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 this case: Dillon et al v. Clackamas County et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Clackamas County
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Craig Roberts
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: William Dillon
Represented By: Leonard Randolph Berman
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Scott Vincent Graue
Represented By: Leonard Randolph Berman
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: David Michael Hodges
Represented By: Leonard Randolph Berman
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?