Cases 1 - 4 of 4
Shayla Duke, et al v. Clyde Saiki, et al
as 20-35155
Defendant:
REGINALD C. RICHARDSON, Dr., GLORIA TAYLOR OLIVARES, BRIAN KIMBELL and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DAVID DUKE and SHAYLA DUKE
Defendant / Appellee:
ASHLEY CARSON COTTINGHAM, in her official capacity as the Director of Aging and People with Disabilities, Oregon Department of Human Services, CLYDE SAIKI, in his personal and official capacity as former Director of Department of Human Services, State of Oregon and FARIBORZ PAKSERESHT, in his personal and official capacity as Director of Department of Human Services, State of Oregon
Shayla Duke, et al v. Clyde Saiki, et al
as 19-35716
Defendant:
REGINALD C. RICHARDSON, Dr.; in his official capacity as the Deputy Director for the Oregon Department of Human Services, HEATHER BELL, in her official capacity as an Hearings Representative for Aging and People with Disabilities, Oregon Department of Human Services, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DAVID DUKE and SHAYLA DUKE
Defendant / Appellee:
ASHLEY CARSON COTTINGHAM, in her official capacity as the Director of Aging and People with Disabilities, Oregon Department of Human Services, CLYDE SAIKI, in his personal and official capacity as former Director of Department of Human Services, State of Oregon and FARIBORZ PAKSERESHT, in his personal and official capacity as Director of Department of Human Services, State of Oregon
Jimerson-Gonzales v. Silver et al
as 1:2016cv00911
Defendant:
Ginaye L. Blaney, Roger M. Blaney, Joshua Case and others
Plaintiff:
Julie A. Jimerson-Gonzales
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Tartar v. Hammond et al
as 6:2013cv01777
Defendant:
Sarah Fancey, Cynthia Fellez, Steven Hammond and others
Declaratory Relief:
Oregon Department of Human Services
Plaintiff:
Channon Tartar
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
