The family of late rapper Tupac Shakur filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Keefe D and others on Tuesday, seeking unspecified damages tied to the artist’s 1996 murder.
In legal documents filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court and viewed by TheWrap, Mopreme Shakur, acting as the administrator of the estate for his late father (and Tupac’s stepfather), Mutulu Shakur, listed Duane “Keefe D” Davis and other unnamed co-conspirators, identified only as “John Does 1 -100,” as defendants in the suit.
A representative for Davis did not immediately respond to TheWrap’s request for comment.
“Nearly 30 years after Tupac’s death, in 2023, the first—and only—arrest was made. Related grand jury transcripts and a subsequent Netflix documentary have since revealed the existence of a broader, more complex conspiracy to murder Tupac that involved much more than mere retaliation for a prior altercation,” the document stated. “Despite this additional information, however, the truth remains elusive. Many individuals who were involved have long since passed way, while others have been hard to identify.”
“Yet, one thing is certain: there remain individuals who were involved in Tupac’s murder who, for 30 years, have not been held accountable for their crimes,” it continued. “This action seeks to change that and to recover damages for the wrongful death of Tupac on behalf of the Estate of Mutulu Shakur, Tupac’s late stepfather and parent.”
Additionally, the suit explained why it name checked Keefe D, stating that the alleged member of the South Side Compton Crips was the “only individual who has been criminally charged in connection with Tupac’s murder.” Keefe D was allegedly in the white Cadillac alongside the gunman who shot Tupac on September 7, 1996.
Nearly 30 years later, on September 29, 2023, a Clark County grand jury indicted him for first-degree murder. Keefe D previously pleaded not guilty to the charge. His trial has been been delayed until August.
As for the other possible defendants, the suit noted that “plaintiff has been unable to confirm, through independent investigation, the precise roles of specific individuals or to distinguish among potential defendants with the certainty required to name them in this Complaint.”
Yet, vowed to “amend this Complaint to state the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants when the same have been ascertained through discovery.”
