Cases 31 - 40 of 166
Willis v. WWW2.police.city/gate et al
as 3:2022cv01598
Plaintiff:
Steven Dawayne Willis
Defendant:
WWW2.police.city/gate, City of -Gate, Park Circle Neighborhood and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Willis v. Palmer et al
as 3:2022cv01600
Plaintiff:
Steven Dawayne Willis
Defendant:
Eric Palmer, Oregon Dept. of Justice, Enterprize Company and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Willis v. Reynolds et al
as 3:2022cv01636
Plaintiff:
Steven Dawayne Willis
Defendant:
Kenneth J. Reynolds, III and Mult Cnty Dist Att Office
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Willis v. Hernandez
as 3:2022cv00939
Plaintiff:
Steven Dawayne Willis
Defendant:
Judge Marco Hernandez
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Willis v. Kabrud
as 3:2022cv01019
Plaintiff:
Steven Dawayne Willis
Defendant:
Jason Kabrud
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Willis v. Vasconti
as 3:2022cv00779
Plaintiff:
Steven Dawayne Willis
Defendant:
Agent Nathan Vasconti
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Willis v. Fhuere
as 6:2022cv00613
Petitioner:
Robert Willis
Respondent:
Superintendent Corey Fhuere
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Willis v. Interian-Pacho et al
as 3:2022cv00383
Plaintiff:
Steven Dawayne Willis
Defendant:
Officer D. Interian-Pacho, Officer Felipe Lopez, Portland Police Bureau and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Willis
as 3:2022cv00348
Petitioner:
Steven Dawayne Willis
Respondent:
Michael Reese
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Willis v. Devaney et al
as 3:2022cv00211
Plaintiff:
Steven Dawayne Willis
Defendant:
M. Devaney, Multnomah County Sheriff's Office and Multnomah County
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.
