Sergio Cadavid v. Michael Harrison
| 2:2004cv00289 |
| January 16, 2004 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| James V. Selna |
| Andrew J. Wistrich |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
253
JUDGMENT by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. Final judgment is hereby entered in favor of the respondent warden and against petitioner Sergio A. Cadavid. IT IS SO ADJUDGED. Related to: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2254) 1 (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (shb)
|
|
Filing
218
PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich re Stipulation for Protective Order 216 (dml)
|
|
Filing
69
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich. On September 10, 2009, the parties appeared for a status conference. The Court directed petitioner to file and serve a supplemental brief within 60 days from the date of the conference. Petitioner's brief was due 11-9-09. Petitioner failed to file such a brief within the time allowed. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 12/18/2009. See document for details. (yb) Modified on 12/4/2009 (yb).
|
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 California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Sergio Cadavid v. Michael Harrison | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.
