Allah v. The Commonwealth of Virginia
Plaintiff: Infinite Allah
Defendant: The Commonwealth of Virginia
Case Number: 2:2010cv00075
Filed: October 4, 2010
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Virginia
Office: Big Stone Gap Office
Presiding Judge: James P. Jones
Presiding Judge: Pamela Meade Sargent
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Other
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act
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 25, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 15 OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 5 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on January 25, 2011. (aec)
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 Virginia Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Allah v. The Commonwealth of Virginia
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Infinite Allah
Represented By: James Arthur Devita
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 ]
Defendant: The Commonwealth of Virginia
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?