Cases 1 - 10 of 15
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
Berry v. Wallace et al
as 6:2024cv00499
Plaintiff:
Thomas Leonard Berry
Defendant:
Wallace, Dirkson, Garibay and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Willis v. State of Oregon et al
as 3:2022cv00125
Plaintiff:
Steven Dawayne Willis
Defendant:
State of Oregon, County of Multnomah, City of Portland and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Willis v. Portland City Auditor et al
as 3:2021cv01884
Plaintiff:
Steven Dawayne Willis
Defendant:
Portland City Auditor, Independent Police Review, Eric Berry and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Berry v. Kelly
as 6:2021cv01248
Petitioner:
Michael T. Berry
Respondent:
Brandon Kelly
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Martin v. Larkin et al
as 2:2018cv00663
Defendant:
T. Alvarez, T. Bailey, Lieutenant Bauer and others
DRCI:
Deer Ridge Correctional Institution
Plaintiff:
Shawn Michael Martin
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Emery v. Franke et al
as 2:2018cv00257
Defendant:
Noah Berry, Lavelle H. Braun, Ted Chase and others
Plaintiff:
Robert Lee Emery, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Nichols v. Peters et al
as 2:2015cv01782
Defendant:
Alves, N. Berry, Christian and others
Plaintiff:
Conrad Lee Nichols
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Berry v. Premo
as 6:2015cv00559
Petitioner:
Kenneth Berry
Respondent:
Jeff Premo
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Foust v. Jacobs
as 2:2014cv01228
Defendant:
Cpl. Akers, c/o Berry, Sgt. Bevins and others
Plaintiff:
Travis Andrew Foust
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.
