Cantru v. Wands
Petitioner: David Michael Cantu
Respondent: Julie Wands
Case Number: 1:2010cv00859
Filed: April 16, 2010
Court: US District Court for the District of Colorado
Office: Denver Office
County: Fremont
Presiding Judge: Boyd N. Boland
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 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
June 8, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 14 ORDER. Applicant David Michael Cantu's 1 Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is denied. This case is dismissed with prejudice. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 6/8/11. (mnf, )
May 11, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 7 ORDER Drawing Case. This case shall be drawn to a district judge and to a magistrate judge. By Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer on 05/11/2010. (sah, )
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 Colorado District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Cantru v. Wands
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: David Michael Cantu
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: Julie Wands
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?