Stephen E. Fitch has rejected a request to dismiss his claims against Josephine County Sheriff David Daniel, keeping the sheriff directly involved in a federal civil rights dispute that grew from confrontations over public meetings, courthouse activity, citizen complaints and allegations that government authority was used in retaliation for protected speech.
The refusal represents the latest development in litigation that has expanded considerably from its beginnings in Josephine County. In written correspondence responding to an inquiry from counsel regarding whether Daniel would be dismissed, Fitch gave an unequivocal answer.
“My answer is no. I will not dismiss Sheriff David Daniel,” Fitch wrote.
Fitch maintains that Daniel is not a peripheral figure whose involvement can be separated from the underlying allegations. His position is that the sheriff knew about his complaints concerning alleged retaliation, intimidation, public-meeting confrontations and harassment and possessed supervisory authority relevant to the conduct Fitch wants examined through discovery.
According to Fitch, he personally spoke with Daniel during a meeting and told the sheriff that he was tired of being attacked at city and county meetings after filing a criminal complaint. Fitch now cites that conversation as part of his argument that Daniel had actual notice of his concerns before the dispute developed into the litigation now pending.
“For these reasons, Sheriff David Daniel’s knowledge, authority, presence, supervisory role, failure to intervene, and connection to deputies or county employees remain material issues for discovery,” Fitch wrote. “I will not dismiss him.”
Fitch’s assertions have not been established as findings of fact, and Daniel and the other defendants remain entitled to dispute his account, challenge his legal theories and seek dismissal of claims through the federal court process. The significance of Fitch’s refusal is that, absent a court ruling removing Daniel from the case, Fitch intends to pursue evidence concerning what the sheriff knew, what authority he exercised and what involvement, if any, the Sheriff’s Office had in the events underlying the lawsuit.
The disagreement surrounding Daniel is the newest chapter in a controversy that predates the federal case.
Earlier proceedings involved Josephine County Circuit Court Case Nos. 25CV66674 and 26SK00069. Fitch, representing himself, filed constitutional challenges arguing that rules governing conduct and decorum at public meetings cannot lawfully be used to suppress criticism or discriminate against citizens because of their viewpoint.
“Standards of decorum may not lawfully be used as a pretext to suppress criticism, silence dissent, or discriminate against speech on the basis of viewpoint,” Fitch stated in an earlier filing.
Fitch acknowledged that government bodies have authority to maintain order and impose reasonable restrictions governing public proceedings. His challenge instead centered on whether those powers were being applied neutrally or used against him because of his criticism, complaints and efforts to seek redress from government.
The controversy subsequently expanded beyond meeting rules.
Fitch identifies August 25 and August 28, 2025, as important dates in the sequence. He alleges that retaliation intensified after public-redress activity and a criminal complaint were served or publicly referenced around August 28 while recall-related activity and other public participation were occurring.
His current account connects those events with activity inside the Josephine County Courthouse, law-enforcement presence, alleged efforts to trespass him, cease-and-desist activity, injunction proceedings and subsequent stalking-order litigation. Fitch contends that these were not isolated events but components of a broader governmental response to his speech and complaints.
That remains Fitch’s allegation. Whether the individual actions were lawful government responses, unrelated events or unconstitutional retaliation is among the factual and legal questions that remain contested.
The dispute moved into federal court on July 10, 2026, when Fitch filed a civil rights lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon under 42 U.S.C. §1983. The action names Josephine County, the City of Grants Pass and several individual defendants, including Daniel, and Fitch has requested a jury trial.
The federal lawsuit changed the posture of the controversy. Fitch was no longer solely responding to injunctions, restrictions or other proceedings involving his conduct. He became the plaintiff alleging that governmental entities and individual officials violated federally protected constitutional rights.
His refusal to dismiss Daniel also signals where Fitch intends to direct part of the discovery process.
In the same correspondence, Fitch demanded preservation of an extensive collection of potential evidence, including emails, text messages, telephone and dispatch records, public-meeting records, courthouse security footage, body-camera video, internal complaints, reports, notes and other communications.
The preservation request specifically identifies records concerning Fitch, Daniel, Case No. 26SK00069, the August 25 and August 28 courthouse and public-redress events, alleged trespass efforts, cease-and-desist activity, injunction proceedings, stalking-order proceedings, alleged telephone intimidation, retaliation and public-meeting restrictions.
Fitch has also clarified that he is seeking more than damages. His stated requested relief includes declaratory, injunctive and corrective relief, evidence preservation and policy-related remedies. He describes those requests as an effort to prevent what he alleges is the use of stalking orders, law-enforcement authority and court proceedings against constitutionally protected public participation.
“Nothing in this letter waives any claim, evidence, remedy, argument, right, or requested relief,” Fitch wrote. “I reserve all rights.”
The developing dispute over Daniel therefore carries practical consequences for the next stage of the litigation. Keeping the sheriff as a defendant potentially places questions involving his knowledge, communications, supervisory responsibilities and interactions with Fitch within the scope of contested discovery, subject to whatever limitations or rulings the federal court imposes.
The case now presents competing propositions that will require evidence rather than accusation to resolve. Fitch alleges that government authority was progressively brought against him after he criticized officials, filed complaints and participated in public government activity. The defendants can dispute those allegations and contend that government officials acted for legitimate reasons within their lawful authority.
What began as a local confrontation over public participation has consequently become a federal examination of government conduct, constitutional protections and the boundary between maintaining public order and retaliating against protected speech.
Fitch’s latest response makes one immediate development unmistakable: when presented with the possibility of removing Sheriff David Daniel from that examination, Fitch refused. Unless the federal court ultimately decides otherwise, he intends for the sheriff’s knowledge, actions and supervisory role to remain part of the case as the litigation moves forward.