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 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 admitted in writing that they killed military family civil rights legislation because I filmed staff in a public restaurant. Another 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):
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.