Ash v. Law Enforcement Agencies

Background

Davenell L. Ash filed a complaint and an application to proceed without prepaying filing fees or costs. The court previously identified defects in the complaint and referred Ash to the Federal Bar Association’s Pro Se Project for possible help preparing an amended complaint. After 90 days passed without an amended complaint, the court reviewed the original complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

The complaint described two main sets of allegations. First, Ash alleged that Duluth Police Department officers questioned her, administered field-sobriety and breath tests, obtained a search warrant, arrested her for “DUI,” took her to a hospital, and conducted or sought additional searches and testing during a September 2023 incident. Second, she alleged a broad conspiracy involving the Duluth Police Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Minnesota’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, the Department of Homeland Security, the National Security Agency, and other named and unnamed people. The alleged conspiracy involved electronic attacks, surveillance, threats, stalking, and harassment. Ash asserted claims under the Fourth, Eighth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments and cited two Minnesota statutes.

Federal claims concerning the September 2023 incident

The court treated Ash’s constitutional claims against the Duluth Police Department as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute requiring a constitutional violation by a person acting under state authority. The court held that police departments are not “persons” that can be sued under § 1983. It also explained that, even if Ash had sued a proper governmental entity, the complaint did not allege that a policy, custom, or failure to train caused the alleged injury. The court therefore dismissed without prejudice the constitutional claims against the Duluth Police Department based on the September 2023 incident.

Federal claims concerning the alleged conspiracy

The court found the claims against the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, Department of Homeland Security, and National Security Agency factually frivolous because the complaint contained no factual allegations about those entities. It dismissed those claims without prejudice.

The complaint did contain allegations about the Duluth Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but the court found the alleged electronic surveillance and remote-harm conspiracy implausible. It concluded that the conspiracy allegations were factually frivolous and insufficient to state federal claims, and dismissed those claims without prejudice.

State-law claims

After dismissing all federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims in a federal case—over Ash’s potential Minnesota-law claims. It dismissed those claims without prejudice based on lack of jurisdiction.

Disposition

Judge Jerry W. Blackwell ordered that Ash’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice. The order did not bar Ash from refiling the dismissed claims, although the opinion did not determine whether a future filing would succeed. The court also denied Ash’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs as moot. The court entered judgment accordingly.