Cases 1 - 7 of 7
Crotty v. Massachusetts Parole Board, et al
as 12-1360
Plaintiff - Appellant:
RICHARD CROTTY
Defendant - Appellee:
MASSACHUSETTS PAROLE BOARD, MARK A. CONRAD, individually and in their capacity as members of the Massachusetts Parole Board, CANDACE KOCHIN, individually and in their capacity as members of the Massachusetts Parole Board and others
Phillips v. Conrad, et al
as 11-1174
Plaintiff - Appellant:
KEITH L. PHILLIPS
Defendant:
MA PAROLE BOARD
Defendant - Appellee:
MARK A. CONRAD, individually and in his capacity as Chairman of the Massachusetts Parole Board, ROGER MICHEL, individually and in his capacity as a member of the Massachusetts Parole Board, CEASAR ARCHILLA, individually and in his capacity as a member of the Massachusetts Parole Board and others
Seaver v. MA Parole Board, et al
as 10-2454
Plaintiff - Appellant:
RICHARD SEAVER
Defendant - Appellee:
MA PAROLE BOARD, MARK CONRAD, in his individual capacity, DORIS DOTTRIDGE, in her individual capacity and others
Movant - Appellee:
MICHAEL LOUIS FABBRI
Crotty v. Massachusetts Parole Board et al
as 4:2010cv40245
Plaintiff:
Richard Crotty
Defendant:
Massachusetts Parole Board, Mark A. Conrad, Candace Kochin and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Phillips v. Massachusetts Parole Board et al
as 4:2010cv40085
Plaintiff:
Keith L. Phillips
Defendant:
Massachusetts Parole Board, Mark A. Conrad, Roger Michel and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Seaver, et al v. Conrad, et al
as 10-1445
Plaintiff - Appellant:
RICHARD SEAVER
Defendant - Appellee:
MARK CONRAD, in his individual capacity, DORIS DOTTRIDGE, in her individual capacity, CANDACE KOCHIN, in her individual capacity and others
Defendant:
MA PAROLE BOARD
Seaver v. Massachusetts Parole Board et al
as 1:2009cv11284
Plaintiff:
Richard Seaver
Defendant:
Massachusetts Parole Board, Mark Conrad, Doris Dottridge and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
