Cases 31 - 40 of 41
Fowlkes v. Dennehy et al
as 1:2007cv12009
Plaintiff:
Felipe Oteze Fowlkes
Defendant:
Kathleen M. Dennehy, James R. Bender, Timothy Hall and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Andrade v. Marshall et al
as 1:2007cv11078
Plaintiff:
Norberto Andrade
Defendant:
John Marshall and Keith Germain
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Nassar v. Dennehy et al
as 1:2007cv10990
Plaintiff:
Christopher Nassar
Defendant:
Kathleen Dennehy, John Marshall, Kevin O'Hearn and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Joseph Flynn v. Massachusetts Department of Correction et al
as 1:2007cv10965
Plaintiff:
Joseph Flynn
Defendant:
Massachusetts Department of Correction, James R. Bender, Carol Mici and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Houlihan v. Dennehy et al
as 1:2007cv10894
Plaintiff:
Brendan Houlihan
Defendant:
Kathleen M. Dennehy, Andrea Cabral and John Marshall
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Rodriguez v. Marshall
as 1:2007cv10665
Petitioner:
Francis Rodriguez
Respondent:
John Marshall
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Gaskins et al v. Marshall et al
as 1:2007cv10507
Plaintiff:
Tony B. Gaskins
Defendant:
John Marshall, Beverly Veglas, Mary Jo Sweeney and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Mallory v. Marshall et al
as 1:2007cv10336
Plaintiff:
Andrew Mallory
Defendant:
John Marshall, Steve Toomey, Nick Kenny and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Cosenza v. Marshall et al
as 1:2007cv10316
Petitioner:
Natale Cosenza
Respondent:
John Marshall, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jones v. Marshall
as 1:2007cv10032
Petitioner:
Antonio Jones
Respondent:
John Marshall
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.
