Cuevas v. Grondolsky
Petitioner: Ruben Cuevas
Respondent: Jeffrey Grondolsky
Case Number: 4:2010cv40261
Filed: December 30, 2010
Court: US District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Office: Worcester Office
County: Worcester
Presiding Judge: Nathaniel M. Gorton
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
January 11, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 3 Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: it is hereby Ordered that Cuevas's request for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED in its entirety. Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel and for other non-habeas relief (certified copies of pleadings translated into English) are DENIED. (PSSA, 1)
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 Massachusetts District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Cuevas v. Grondolsky
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Ruben Cuevas
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: Jeffrey Grondolsky
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?