Howard v. Anderson
Petitioner: David Scott Howard
Respondent: Scott E. Anderson
Case Number: 1:2011cv10562
Filed: April 4, 2011
Court: US District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Office: Boston Office
County: Suffolk
Presiding Judge: Richard G. Stearns
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254
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 10, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 8 Judge Richard G. Stearns: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered granting 6 Motion to Dismiss "Petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk will now close the case." cc: Mr. David Scott Howard. (Flaherty, Elaine)
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: Howard v. Anderson
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Scott E. Anderson
Represented By: Jason M. Swergold
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 ]
Petitioner: David Scott Howard
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?