Schmutzler v. Grondolsky
Petitioner: Jeffery Schmutzler
Respondent: Jeff Grondolsky
Case Number: 1:2017cv11578
Filed: August 22, 2017
Court: US District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Office: Boston Office
County: Middlesex
Presiding Judge: Leo T. Sorokin
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28:2241
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
October 2, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 10 District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER.Schmutzler's 1 Petition for Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED for lack ofjurisdiction. 7 Schmutzler's Motion seeking Appointment of Counsel is DENIED as moot. A copy of this Order along with a copy of the Docket Sheet has been mailed to the Petitioner. (Montes, Mariliz)
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: Schmutzler v. Grondolsky
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Jeffery Schmutzler
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: Jeff Grondolsky
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?