Sullivan v. Marchilli

Petitioner: Mark Sullivan
Respondent: Raymond Marchilli
Case Number: 1:2013cv11504
Filed: June 24, 2013
Court: Massachusetts District Court
Office: Boston Office
County: Suffolk
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
January 13, 2015 26 Opinion or Order of the Court District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER on Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Petition is DENIED. See attached. (LTS, law2)
March 24, 2015 43 Opinion or Order of the Court District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered allowing 40 Motion for Certificate of Appealability. See attached. (LTS, law2)

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: Sullivan v. Marchilli
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Mark Sullivan
Represented By: David J. Nathanson
Represented By: Carlo A. Obligato
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: Raymond Marchilli
Represented By: Ryan E. Ferch
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 should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.