Cases 1 - 10 of 20
Middlekauff v. Reyes
as 2:2023cv01817
Petitioner:
Darrell Kelly Middlekauff, Sr.
Respondent:
Superintendent Erin Reyes and Erin Reyes
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
McCrary v. Blewitt
as 2:2020cv00537
Respondent:
T. Blewitt
Petitioner:
Dathan Jude McCrary, Sr
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Hopkins v. Nooth
as 2:2018cv00573
Petitioner:
Dayten Cordell Hopkins, Sr.
Respondent:
Mark Nooth
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Bostwick v. Oregon Dept. of Corrections et al
as 2:2016cv01979
Petitioner:
Aaron P. Bostwick, Sr.
Respondent:
Lt. Hogeland, Oregon Dept. of Corrections and C. Peters
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Henderson v. Premo
as 6:2016cv00969
Petitioner:
Jaime Darnell Henderson, Sr.
Respondent:
Jeff Premo
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Maguire v. Amsberry
as 2:2014cv00940
Respondent:
Bridgette Amsberry
Petitioner:
Rodney Allen Maguire, Sr.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Purvine v. Nooth
as 2:2013cv02165
Respondent:
Mark Nooth
Petitioner:
Matthew William Purvine, Sr.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Armstrong v. Foulk et al
as 6:2013cv00583
Petitioner:
Harold L. Armstrong, Sr.
Respondent:
(A) Jeffrey A. Beard and F. Foulk
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Bell, Sr. v. Nooth
as 2:2012cv01628
Petitioner:
Larry Lydell Bell, Sr.
Respondent:
Mark Nooth
503) 947-4794 (fax:
Lynn David Larsen
503) 947-4791 (fax:
Samuel A. Kubernick
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Benson Sr. v. Franke
as 2:2012cv01099
Petitioner:
Michael David Benson Sr.
Respondent:
Mr. Franke
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
