Cases 1 - 10 of 11
(PC) Albritton v. State of California et al
as 2:2024cv01424
Plaintiff:
Devinche Javon Albritton
Defendant:
State of California and California Department of Corrections
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2024cv00899
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv02096
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 pr Complaint for mandamus relief (prisoner)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2024hc02092
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00469
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
AlBritton v. Commonwealth of Virginia et al
as 7:2024cv00283
Plaintiff:
DeVinche Javon AlBritton
Defendant:
Commonwealth of Virginia, Counselor Kayla Mallory, David Robinson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
AlBritton v. Anderson et al
as 7:2022cv00306
Plaintiff:
DeVinche Javon AlBritton
Defendant:
David Anderson, Kimberly Phipps and Harold Clarke
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
v. Albritton et al
as 2:2016cv00737
Petitioner:
DeVinche Javon Albritton
Respondent:
Harold Clarke
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Albritton v. Wright et al
as 2:2012cv00233
Plaintiff:
DeVinche Javon Albritton
Defendant:
Edward Wright, Mr. Morgan, Ms. Bacon and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Albritton v. Clarke
as 2:2010cv00528
Petitioner:
DeVinche Javon Albritton
Respondent:
Gene M. Johnson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
