Scott v. Gelb
Petitioner: Darryl Scott
Respondent: Bruce Gelb
Case Number: 1:2013cv10306
Filed: February 15, 2013
Court: US District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Office: Boston Office
County: Middlesex
Presiding Judge: Douglas P. Woodlock
Nature of Suit: Prisoner: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
July 28, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 40 Judge Douglas P. Woodlock: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered granting 31 Motion to Dismiss, after: granting 33 Motion to Amend; denying 38 Motion to Appoint Counsel and finding as moot 39 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis in light of the receipt of the filing fee. (Woodlock, Douglas)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Massachusetts District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Scott v. Gelb
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Darryl Scott
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Bruce Gelb
Represented By: Thomas E. Bocian
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?