Burgess v. Oliver et al
Petitioner: Corey Burgess
Respondent: John C. Oliver and Charles A. Daniels
Case Number: 1:2013cv03297
Filed: December 6, 2013
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
April 22, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 57 ORDER by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 4/22/15. ORDERED :Applicant's Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Docket No. 1] and Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Docket No. 55] are DENIED as moot. ORDERED This case is DISMISSED without prejudice as moot for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (kpreu)
March 23, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 56 ORDER. ORDERED that applicant's First Request for Production of Documents [Docket No. 43] and Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery [Docket No. 44] and respondent's Motion to Stay Discovery [Docket No. 46] are DENIED without prejudice. O RDERED that on or before Monday, April 6, 2015 applicant shall show cause why his applications for writ of habeas corpus [Docket Nos. 1, 55] should not be dismissed as moot. Any response shall be filed on or before Monday, April 20, 2015. In the event that the Court's order to show cause is discharged, the parties may move to reinstate the present motions. Entered by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 03/23/15.(jhawk, )
May 1, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 28 ORDER Drawing Case by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 05/01/14. This case shall be assigned to a presiding judge and, if appropriate, to a magistrate judge. FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the Court remail to Applicant, togetherwith a copy of this order, a copy of the Order Directing Respondent to File Preliminary Response filed on April 10, 2014 (ECF No. 18), which was returned to the Court as undeliverable on April 16, 2014 (ECF No. 21), and on April 28, 2014 (ECF No. 25). (nmarb, )
April 10, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 18 ORDER Directing Respondent to File Preliminary Response and DENYING as unnecessary 17 Motion for Order Re: Consent, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 04/10/14.(nmarb, )
April 2, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 15 MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 04/02/14, granting 14 Motion for Copy of Docket Sheet. The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail toApplicant, together with this minute order, a copy at no charge of the docket sheet in this case. (nmarb, )
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: Burgess v. Oliver et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Corey Burgess
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: John C. Oliver
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: Charles A. Daniels
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?