Cases 1 - 10 of 19
Davenell Ash v. Law Enforcement Agencies, et al
as 24-1853
Plaintiff:
Davenell L. Ash
Defendant:
Law Enforcement Agencies, FBI, BCA, DHS, NSA, etc. and Duluth Police Department
Davenell Ash v. Duluth Police Dept., et al
as 24-1459
Plaintiff:
Davenell L. Ash
Defendant:
Duluth Police Department and Minnesota State Patrol
Ash, Davenell v. Superior Police Dept. et al
as 3:2024cv00123
Plaintiff:
Davenell L. Ash
Defendant:
Superior Police Dept., Judge Kelly Thimm, Prosecutor Chad Lalor and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
ASH v. USA
as 1:2024cv00024
Plaintiff:
DAVENELL L. ASH
Defendant:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1491 Tucker Act
Ash v. Law Enforcement Agencies et al
as 0:2023cv02860
Plaintiff:
Davenell L Ash
Defendant:
Law Enforcement Agencies and Duluth, MN Police Dept
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Ash v. State of Minnesota et al
as 0:2023cv00891
Plaintiff:
Davenell L Ash
Defendant:
State of Minnesota, Duluth Police Force, 12 Unknown Agents and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Ash v. State of Minnesota et al
as 0:2023cv00295
Plaintiff:
Davenell L Ash
Defendant:
State of Minnesota, Duluth Police Dept, Hibbing Police Dept and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Davenell Ash v. Kelly Thimm, et al
as 22-3242
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DAVENELL L. ASH
Defendant / Appellee:
KELLY THIMM, Circuit Court Judge, CHAD LALOR, Prosecutor, TODD CARLSON, Officer and others
Davenell Ash v. Superior Police Department, et al
as 22-3241
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DAVENELL L. ASH
Defendant / Appellee:
CITY OF SUPERIOR POLICE DEPARTMENT, KELLY HASHEY, Mr. and KELLY HASHEY, Mrs.
Davenell Ash v. State of Minnesota, et al
as 22-3432
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Davenell L. Ash
Defendant / Appellee:
State of Minnesota, Duluth Police Department, Hibbing Police Department and others
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.
