Martin v. Oregon Department of Corrections et al
| Michael Mark Martin |
| Dr. Dagner, Michael Gower, J. Lawson, D.E. Long, Oregon Department of Corrections and Jeff Premo |
| 6:2015cv00226 |
| February 9, 2015 |
| US District Court for the District of Oregon |
| Eugene (6) Office |
| Michael W. Mosman |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights |
| None |
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
97
OPINION & ORDER: The College's Motion to Dismiss 70 is Granted to the extent it addresses Martin's Fourteenth Amendment, ADA, RA, and Oregon constitutional claims and is otherwise Denied, and those claims are accordingly Dismissed with prejudice to the extent alleged against the College defendants, or either of them. Signed on 1/9/17 by Magistrate Judge Paul Papak. (gm)
|
|
Filing
34
ORDER: plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint 25 and Motion to Substitute Party 29 are GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed docket plaintiff's proposed amended complaint and attachments as the operati ve pleading in this action and to add Ms. Aguinaga as a defendant in the case. Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction 22 and Second Motion for Appointment of Counsel 31 are DENIED. All other motions currently pending before the Court are DENIED as moot. Signed on 11/3/15 by Magistrate Judge Paul Papak. (Mailed copy to plaintiff) (dsg)
|
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 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.
