Cases 1 - 10 of 51
Morin et al v. Gray et al
as 1:2024cv10648
Plaintiff:
Jeremy Morin, Raymond Boissonault and Shawn Inglis
Defendant:
Dean Gray and Joe Ayala
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Salsbury v. Gray
as 1:2024cv10052
Petitioner:
Arthur E. Salsbury
Respondent:
Dean Gray
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Salsbury v. Gray
as 1:2024cv10050
Petitioner:
Arthur E. Salsbury and Arthur E. Salsbury, Jr.
Respondent:
Dean Gray
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Larocque v. Deschene et al
as 1:2023cv13252
Plaintiff:
Carl Larocque
Defendant:
Robert J. Deschene, Matthew M. Wisnewski, Craig Lussier and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Lane-Bey v. Alfred Lane T98017, et al
as 23-1993
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ALFRED DARNELL LANE-BEY
Defendant / Appellee:
ALFRED DARNELL LANE T98017, MAURA TRACY HEALEY, Governor, State of Massachusetts, in her individual and official capacity, SHAWN P. JENKINS, Chief of Staff, Massachusetts Department of Correction, in his individual and official capacity and others
Nesbitt v. Gray
as 23-1925
Petitioner / Appellant:
RALPH NESBITT
Respondent / Appellee:
DEAN GRAY, Superintendent, Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center
Kim v. Gray
as 1:2023cv12584
Petitioner:
Daniel Larry Kim
Respondent:
Dean Gray
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Nesbitt v. Gray
as 23-1876
Petitioner:
RALPH NESBITT
Respondent:
DEAN GRAY, Superintendent, Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center
Lane-Bey v. Lane T98017 et al
as 1:2023cv12391
Plaintiff:
Alfred Lane-Bey
Defendant:
Alfred Darnell Lane T98017, Maura T. Healy, Shawn P. Jenkins and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Moore v. Gray
as 1:2023cv11973
Plaintiff:
Mr. Dwayne Moore
Defendant:
Dean Gray
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
