Cases 31 - 40 of 10,168
Appelt v. United States of America
as 6:2024cv00857
Plaintiff:
Jonathan Dakota Appelt
Defendant:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Garcia v. USA
as 3:2024cv00843
Petitioner:
Hector Javier Garcia
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
Osejo v. Miller
as 2:2024cv00833
Petitioner:
Enrique Osejo
Respondent:
Jamie Miller
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Eaton v. Reese et al
as 3:2024cv00818
Plaintiff:
Arnold Eaton
Defendant:
Michael Reese, Colette Peters, All Former Directors of The Oregon Department of Corrections and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Luiz et al v. Arrington et al
as 3:2024cv00808
Plaintiff:
Denice Shala Joy Luiz and Kameron Biondello
Defendant:
Lisa Arrington, Brenda Blackburn, Nicole Brown and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Erskine v. US. Government Agencies
as 6:2024cv00778
Petitioner:
Robert Lee Erskine
Respondent:
US. Government Agencies
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Traylor v. Friend
as 2:2024cv00769
Plaintiff:
Abudu Imamu Traylor
Defendant:
Stanley Friend
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Osborne v. Vincent et al
as 1:2024cv00768
Plaintiff:
Jack Lee Osborne
Defendant:
Capt. Vincent, Deputy Fittings, Deputy Whitmore and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Grant v. Multnomah County Jail
as 3:2024cv00772
Plaintiff:
Raymond LaVaughn Grant
Defendant:
Multnomah County Jail
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Berry v. State of Oregon et al
as 6:2024cv00766
Plaintiff:
Thomas Leonard Berry
Defendant:
State of Oregon, Honorable Judge Edmonds and District Attorney
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.
