Isaac v. Manning et al. — Federal Civil Rights Case No. 6:25-cv-01159-MC

U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon

Case No. 6:25-cv-01159-MC
Plaintiff: Logan Martin Isaac, pro se / in forma pauperis
Defendants: Shelly Boshart Davis, Renee Perry, John and Jane Doe
Filed: July 3, 2025
Judge: Michael J. McShane

Complete public archive of court filings, orders, pleadings, correspondence, discovery-related filings, and other documents maintained by the plaintiff in Isaac v. Manning et al., No. 6:25-cv-01159-MC.

On July 3, 2025, I filed a federal civil rights lawsuit under the "Ku Klux Klan Enforcement Act" of 1871 (Pub.L. 42−22, 17 Stat. 13) against Oregon Senator James Manning, Oregon Representative Shelly Boshart Davis, her Chief of Staff Renee Perry, Assistant Oregon Attorney General Rebecca Maile, and others for depriving military families, a federally protected class, of our constitutional rights through systemic abuse of process. Manning and Maile have since been dismissed as defendants, and multiple John and Jane Does remain unnamed.

Oregon state legislators killed military family civil rights legislation because I filmed staff in a public restaurant. A fellow Senator’s email to James Manning displays his motive: 'I know I said yes to this request, but I won’t move forward with the bill because it would be rewarding behavior I don’t like.'

This is First Amendment retaliation, documented in black and white.

Timeline

July 3, 2025 - Initial Complaint (ECF01): Complaint filed by Logan Martin Isaac against All Defendants. Jury Trial Requested: Yes.

Sep 2, 2025 - Opinion and ORDER (ECF08): Plaintiff's Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, ECF No. 2 , is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel, ECF No. 3 , is DENIED. If Plaintiff wishes to do so, he may file an amended complaint within 30 days of this Order.

Sep 24, 2025 - First Amended Complaint (FAC, ECF 09); Amended Complaint. Filed by Logan Martin Isaac against All Defendants.

Nov 26, 2025 - FAC Opinion and ORDER (ECF 12); Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9 ) appears subject to dismissal in part. Because Plaintiff is self-represented and his pleadings have been dismissed in this case only one time before, the Court's partial dismissal is with leave to amend. If Plaintiff wishes, Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to file a second amended complaint correcting the deficiencies identified in this Order. Plaintiff may alternatively inform the Court that he intends to proceed only as to his claims that survive screening as described in this Order.

Dec 11, 2025 - Second Amended Complaint (SAC, ECF 13): filed: Second Amended Complaint. Filed by Logan Martin Isaac against All Defendants.

Jan 22, 2026 - SAC Opinion and ORDER (ECF14): Opinion and Order: As discussed above, Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 13 ) appears subject to dismissal in part. If the Court finds that a complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim, the Court has discretion to dismiss with or without leave to amend. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 112630 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Because they have now been dismissed twice in this case and it is clear they cannot be cured by amendment, Plaintiff's claims against Senator Manning are DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) ("A pro se litigant must be given leave to amend his or her complaint, and some notice of its deficiencies, unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment."). Senator Manning is dismissed as a defendant in this action. Plaintiff's allegations appear minimally sufficient to pass screening for his claims of First Amendment retaliation, denial of procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, and conspiracy to violate civil rights against Representative Davis, Perry, and Doe Defendants. Plaintiff's allegations also appear minimally sufficient to survive screening on a claim for prospective injunctive relief under the Young doctrine to prevent ongoing enforcement of allegedly unconstitutional restrictions on his access to the Capitol.

Jan 28, 2026 - Renewed Motion for Counsel (ECF 15): Renewed Motion for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel. Filed by Logan Martin Isaac.

Jan 30, 2026 - ORDER on Motion (ECF17): Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel(ECF No. 15 ) is DENIED. This denial shall be without prejudice and Plaintiff may once again renew his Motion at a later time.

Mar 12, 2026 - State’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses (SAAD, ECF 20)

Mar 16, 2026 - Plaintiff’s Notice (ECF 23): Objection to Answer to Amended Complaint 20 . Filed by Logan Martin Isaac.

May 12, 2026 - Rule 16 Scheduling Conference set for 5/21 at 10AM.

May 21, 2026 - Rule 16 Scheduling Conference

August 8, 2026 - Motion to Compel (ECF 31)

August 18, 2026 - ORDER Mooting Motion (ECF 32): The parties have communicated with the Court regarding a  discovery dispute. Defendants Perry and Representative Davis shall have until  9/14/2026 to respond to Plaintiff's outstanding discovery requests. Plaintiff's  Motion to Compel [31] is denied as moot. Ordered by Judge Michael J. McShane.

August 27, 2026 - Renewed Motion to Compel (ECF 33)

September 10, 2026 - State Defendants Response to Motion to Compel (ECF 34)

September 18, 2026 - ORDER on Motion (ECF35): Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. ECF No. [33] is denied. The party seeking discovery must establish that the discovery sought is relevant, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), and the party resisting discovery has the burden of explaining and supporting its objections. Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975). Plaintiff's request for additional documents, even if it clears a low bar for relevance, is not proportional to the needs of the case.

The additional documents Plaintiff requests concern a "threat assessment" investigation regarding an incident at the State Capitol that is separate from the incidents underlying Plaintiff's surviving claims. Further, as to this incident, an email already produced by Defendants states the Oregon State Police ("OSP") first confirmed Plaintiff had "no history within OSP's database" and concluded Plaintiff was not "an immediate threat to the employee or any other member of the state government or public." ECF No. [34] at p.4. Defendants' objection is therefore well-founded. As to Plaintiff's request for clarification within the Motion, the Court reiterates that it will refrain from managing the deadlines set by the parties between themselves for specific discovery items absent any indication of an effort to withhold discoverable material. The parties may request reasonable extensions to the 11/5/2026 fact discovery deadline supported by good cause.   Ordered by Judge Michael J. McShane.

September 24, 2026 - Motion to Compel (ECF 36): Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Outstanding Non-Objected OSP/LAC Subpoena Material (Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)).

September 25, 2026 - Defendant's Reply to Motion to Compel (ECF 37)

October 2, 2026 - ORDER (ECF 38): Plaintiff's Motion to Compel [36] is denied as moos based on Defendant's response that it turned over all of the discovery on September 25, 2026.  Ordered by Judge Michael J. McShane.

October 2, 2026 - Plaintiff's Motion on Depositions (ECF 39); to Set the Place and Time of the Depositions of Defendants Perry and Boshart Davis, and for a Limited Extension of the Fact-Discovery Deadline. 

October 2, 2026 - Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (ECF 40) Privilege Log and Statement of Redaction Bases for OSP/LAC Subpoena Production.

October 2, 2026 - Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (ECF 41) Production by Non-Parties Matthew Keating, James Manning and the Oregon Department of Veterans Affairs.

October 2, 2026 - Plaintiff's Third Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF 42)

October 7, 2026 - ORDER (ECF 43): Plaintiff's Motions to Compel ECF No's. 40 and 41 are denied. The discovery deadline is 11/5/2026. The parties are directed to communicate about remaining discovery issues. The Court reiterates that it will refrain from managing the deadlines set by the parties between themselves for specific discovery items absent any indication of an effort to withhold discoverable material. If there are outstanding issues after the November deadline, the parties can request a status conference with the Court to resolve any remaining issues. Should the parties request such a conference, the court requests a memo, limited to five pages, from the Plaintiff detailing the remaining items requested and the defendants' response for why those items are withheld. The parties may request reasonable extensions to the 11/5/2026 fact discovery deadline supported by good cause.

Plaintiff's Motion for Pro Bono Counsel, ECF No. 42 is denied without prejudice. There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. See Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982). The plaintiff has not demonstrated "exceptional circumstances" that require appointing counsel. Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). Even if Plaintiff will face certain challenges pursuing and presenting his case, his circumstances are not exceptionally different from the same challenges faced by most self-represented litigants asserting constitutional claims. See Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). Ordered by Judge Michael J. McShane.

October 14, 2026 - ORDER (ECF 44 ): Plaintiff's Motion to for the court to schedule depositions ECF No. [39] is denied. The Court does not host or provide security for depositions. Depositions will occur at the DOJ offices.  Ordered by Judge Michael J. McShane. 

Document provenance

The documents on this page are copies of filings and correspondence maintained by the plaintiff in Isaac v. Manning et al., No. 6:25-cv-01159-MC (D. Or.). Court filings should be verified against the official federal docket. Documents are reproduced for public access and research.