Butler v. Mitchell

Petitioner: Reginald Butler
Respondent: Lisa A. Mitchell
Case Number: 1:2013cv11346
Filed: June 24, 2013
Court: Massachusetts District Court
Office: Boston Office
County: Plymouth
Presiding Judge: William G. Young
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28:2254 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
May 19, 2015 21 Opinion or Order of the Court Judge William G. Young: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER"For the aforementioned reasons, Butler's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1 , is DENIED.SO ORDERED."(Sonnenberg, Elizabeth) Modified on

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: Butler v. Mitchell
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Reginald Butler
Represented By: Michael J. Fellows(Designation Retained)
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Lisa A. Mitchell
Represented By: Kris C. Foster(Designation Retained)
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 [ 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 were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.