Mendez v. Goguen
Petitioner: Charles Mendez
Respondent: Colette Goguen
Case Number: 4:2017cv40076
Filed: May 18, 2017
Court: US District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Office: Worcester Office
County: Worcester
Presiding Judge: Timothy S. Hillman
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254
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
November 30, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 26 District Judge Timothy S. Hillman: ORDER entered adopting Report and Recommendations re 22 Report and Recommendations. The Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted and the Petitioner's Motion for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket No. 1) is denied. Accordingly, this action is dismissed. (Castles, Martin)
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: Mendez v. Goguen
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Charles Mendez
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: Colette Goguen
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?