Cases 51 - 60 of 112
Johnson v. State of Oregon
as 3:2017cv01420
Petitioner:
Martin Allen Johnson
Respondent:
State of Oregon
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - Stay of Execution
Martin v. McMillian et al
as 2:2017cv01393
Defendant:
John and Jane Does 1-6, John and Jane Does 7-12, Killem and others
Plaintiff:
Shawn Michael Martin
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Glenn v. State of Oregon et al
as 3:2017cv01377
Plaintiff:
Melree Larea Glenn
Defendant:
Shanti Martin, So Fresh PDX/Freedom Streetink and State of Oregon
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Martin v. Munsey et al
as 2:2017cv01299
Defendant:
B. Bogardus, Deer Ridge Correctional Institution, R. George and others
Plaintiff:
Shawn Michael Martin
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Quintero v. Bureau of Prisons-Sheridan, OR et al
as 3:2017cv00707
Defendant:
Bureau of Prisons-Sheridan, OR, Richard Ives and Zachary Millsap
Plaintiff:
Martin Quintero
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Romero v. Cain
as 2:2017cv00660
Respondent:
Brad Cain
Petitioner:
Martin Romero
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Johnson v. USA
as 3:2016cv02284
Petitioner:
Martin Allen Johnson
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
Sanger v. USA
as 6:2016cv01639
Petitioner:
Martin Andrew Sanger
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
Johnson v. Premo
as 6:2016cv00841
Petitioner:
Martin Allen Johnson
Respondent:
Warden Premo
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - Stay of Execution
Nelson v. Nooth
as 2:2016cv00756
Petitioner:
Cleveland Dante Nelson
Respondent:
Martin Nooth
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.
