Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 1 of 86

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION

LATOYA BROWN; LAWRENCE BLACKMON;HERBERTANTHONY GREEN; KHADAFY MANNING; QUINNETTA MANNING; MARVIN MCFIELD; NICHOLAS SINGLETON; STEVEN SMITH; BESSIE THOMAS; and BETTY JEAN WILLIAMS TUCKER, inclividually and on behalf of a class of al l others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MADISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI; SHERIFF RANDALL S. TUCKER, in his official capacity; and MADISON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPUTIES JOHN DOES # 1 through #6, in their individual capacities,

MAY -8 20.11 1 J
BY
Civil Action No.?.J1..cV,.Si.f'J WIJ!b-J...RIJ
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND INDIVIDUAL DAMAGES
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Defendants.

PRELThflNARYSTATEMENT 1. The Sheriff's Department ofMadison County, Mississippi ("MCSD") implements a coordinated top-down program of methodically targeting Black individuals for suspicionless searches and seizures while they are driving their cars, walking in their neighborhoods, or even just spending time in their own homes (the "Policing Program"). MCSD deputies frequently use w.Yustified and excessive force in conducting these searches and seizures. 2. The MCSD's Policing Program impacts virtually every aspect of Black residents' lives. Simple daily activities- such as commuting to work, grocery shopping, visiting friends and family, attending church, or even sitting on the steps outside one's own home- present the

1

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 2 of 86

very real possibility of unlawful and humi liating searches and seizures, as well as the attendant

prospect of arrest and jail time for unpaid fines and fees.'

3. As a result, many Black residents of Madison County experience chronic fear and

anxiety, disruptions to their everyday activities, restrictions on travel within their own

neighborhoods and towns, and a tremendous reluctance to contact law enforcement ot11cials for

assistance when necessary. Some Black community members go so far as to avoid leaving their

homes to limit the risk of enco untering one of the MCSD's many illegal roadblocks or pedestrian

"checkpoints" described below. In effect, the Policing Program has placed the Black community

of Madison County under a permanent state of siege.

4. The hallmark tactics of the MCSD 's longstanding and deeply-entrenched Policing

Program include:

•

vehicular roadblocks designed and placed to target Black individuals for highly

intrusive, pretextual., and suspicionless searches and seizures in Madison County's

majority-Black towns, residential neighborhoods, and busi ness districts;

•

pedestrian "checkpoints" designed to target Black individuals for suspicionless

searches and seizmes, including while entering or exiting predom inantly-Black

housing complexes;

•

warrantless and consentless searches of the homes of Black residents,

sometimes accompanied by suspicionless searches and seizures of all persons

within; and

•

".Jump Out" patrols of plainclothes deputies deployed in unmarked cars in

Black communities to stealthily and aggressively target Black individuals for

unreasonable searches and seizures.

1 Whenever an MCS D deputy stops a Black individual, the deputy typically checks that individua l's identification to determine whether he or she owes outstanding fines to the County. These fmes often stem from traftic violations or other minor infractions. Black individuals are more likely than white indiv iduals in Madison County to lack the resources to pay these fines, as well as the added court fees, in full on their schedu led cou1t dates. When an individual fails to pay the required amount, the court will issue a warrant for his/her arrest to compel co llection.

2

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 3 of 86
The MCSD also relies on a broad range of other methods-including suspicionless traffic stops and suspicionless frisks ofpedestrians-to target Black community members for illegal searches and seizures.
5. The MCSD bas deployed the unconstitutional racially discriminatory policing tactics described above pursuant to a single overarching policy, custom, and/or practice of systematicaUy conducting unreasonable searches and seizures of persons, homes, cars, and property on the basis of race.
6. The Policing Program is so persistent and widespread as to practically have the force of law in Madison County.
7. Like many policing policies, practices, and customs deemed unconstitutional by federal courts and the United States Department of Justice,2 each of the policing practices conducted pursuant to the MCSD' s Policing Program independently violates both the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
8. The Policing Program is rooted in Madison County's infamous history of racial animus. The wealthiest county in Mississippi, Madison County is now and has always been acutely racially segregated. Past Madison County Sheriffs have violently opposed racial integration, led white supremacist organizations,3 and willfuJ iy turned a blind eye to racially
2 See, e.g., U.S. Department of Justice, Investigation ofthe Baltimore City Police Department (2016), https://www.justice.gov/cr1ifi le/883296/download; U.S. Department of Justice, Investigation ofthe Ferguson Police Department (2015), https://wwvv.justice.gov/sites/defaul1ifiles/opa/pressreleases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson police department report l .pdf. 3 See, e.g., Officer Memorials, Sheriff Randy Tucker, http://www.sheriffTand)1ucker.com/officermemorials/ (last visited May 5, 20 17) (reprinting September l 0, 1959 Madison County Herald article stating that former Madison County Sheriff Marion F. Simpson "was one of the organizers of the local Citizens Cotmci l and remained as one of its most active leaders, also serving on the Executive Committee of the state association of Citizens Councils."). The Citizens Council was formed in opposition to
3

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 4 of 86
discriminatory conditions of confinement. These sheriffs used many of the same unconstitutional
racially discriminatory policing tactics employed in the Policing Program. For example, during
the Civil Rights era, Madison County Sheriff Billy Noble regularly established roadblocks to
conduct unconstitutional searches and seizures of Black motorists.
9. The MCSD's Policing Program has resulted in stark racial disparities in policing
outcomes that cannot be explained by alternative non-race-based factors. Although only 38% of Madison County residents are Black,4 approximately 73% of arrests in Madison County
between May and September of2016 were ofBlack individuals. Only 23% arrests during this time period were of white individuals, even though Madison County is 57% white.5 These statistics suggest that the arrest rate for Black individuals is nearlyfive times the arrest rate for white individuals in Madison County.6
10. Because the MCSD targets Black communities for roadblocks and suspicionless
pedestrian stops, the vast majority of individuals arrested at roadblocks and pedestrian stops in
Madison County are Black. Between May and September 2016, 81% of arrests at roadblocks and
82% of arrests at pedestrian stops in Madison County were of Black individuals.
desegregation and "gr[e]w to be the most powerful opponent of civil rights activism in Mississippi." The Citizens ' Council, AMERICAN RADIOWORKS, http://americanradioworks.publ icradio.orglfeatures/mississippi/c l.html (last visited May 5, 2017). 4 Based on 2010 Census data. See Quickfacts: Madison County, Mississippi, U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/28089,28 (last visited May 5, 2017). 5 Based on 2010 Census data. See Quickfacts: Madison County, Mississippi, U.S. Census Bureau, http://v.rww.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/28089,28 (last visited May 5, 2017). 6 If the MCSD's arrest rates were proportional to the population, then approximately 38% of arrests would be of Black individuals and approximately 57% of arrests would be of white individuals. The rate of arrests of Black individuals in Madison County is roughly double this expected percentage (73%, or approximately 2 times the percentage of Madison County's population that is Black). The rate of arrests of white individuals is less than half the expected percentage (23%, or approximately 0.4 times the expected percentage). In other words, the arrest rate for Black individuals is nearlyfive times the arrest rate for white individuals in Madison County.
4

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 5 of 86
11. At roadblocks and pedestrian stops, the MCSD overwhelmingly arrests Black individuals. However, white arrestees are 1.4 times more likely than Black anestees to be charged with driving Lmder the influence of drugs or alcoho l. They are 1.1 times more likely to be charged with a drug crime. In contrast, Black anestees face over 3.2 times the odds for white individuals of being charged only with a petty revenue-generating veh icle infraction, like having a burned out headlight or no seat belt. This data suggests a pattern of population-targeted as opposed to public safety-motivated pollcing.
12. Over the years, the MCSD 's Policing Program has led to thousands of violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The Policing Program is '"unquestionably . .. the moving force" beh ind these constitutional violations within the meaning of the Supreme Court's decision in Monell v. Department olSocial Services ofCity ofNew York, 436 U.S. 658, 694-95 (1978).
13. Since taking office in January 2012, Sheriff Randall S. Tucker ("Sheriff Tucker") bas adopted and implemented the Policing Program in its entirety.
14. SheriffTucker has not only enforced the Policing Profr, ram but also expanded its scope. Among other actions, he has enacted or maintained a written roadblock policy that sanctions unconstitutional racially discriminatory roadblocks. [n essence, Sheriff Tucker has empowered MCSD deputies with enhanced authority and implicit encouragement to target the members of Madison County's Black community fo r unreasonable searches and seizures.
15. SheriffTucker has been deliberately indifferent to the constitutional vio lations caused by the Policing Program. Among other actions and inactions, he has: ( 1) on information and belief, failed to investigate a Black MCSD deputy's complaint of racially discriminatory pol icing practices and the unjustified use of physical force against Black community members;
5

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 6 of 86
(2) hired a deputy with a documented history of misconduct involving the excessive use of force; (3) chosen not to establish any rules or regulations prohibiting racial bias in policing; (4) decided not to maintain basic data on the MCSD's policing practices, such as the dates and locations of roadblocks; and (5) stopped keeping records of complaints against MCSD deputies.
16. For at least a decade, the Madison COLmty BoaTd of Supervisors has known that the MCSD systematically targets the Black community for unreasonable searches and seizures. The Madison County Board of Supervisors has also been aware of a pattern of constih1tional violations suffered by the Black residents of Madison County as a direct result of the MCSD's Policing Program.
17. However. the Madison County Board of Supervisors has been deliberateJy indifferent to these constitutional violations by failing to investigate the MCSD's racially discriminatory policing practices and/or its pattern of conducting urueasonable searches and seizures, and by failing to require the MCSD to take any actions to: (a) establish policies that prohibit racially discriminatory policing practices and/or unreasonable searches and seizmes; (b) screen, train, and supervise MCSD deputies, employees, and agents to prevent MCSD personnel from employing unconstitutional racially discriminatory policing practices and/or conducting unreasonable searches and seizures; (c) monitor MCSD deputies, employees, and agents to ensure that their policing practices comply with constitutional requirements; and/or (d) discipline MCSD deputies, employees, and agents who employ racially discriminatory policing practices and/or conduct unreasonable searches and seiz ures.
18. This policy of inaction by the Madison County Board of Supervisors is the functional equivalent of a decision by Madison County itself to violate the Constitution. By failing to take any steps to investigate or remedy the MCSD' s systematic targeting of Black
6

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 7 of 86
residents for unreasonable searches and seizures, the Board of Supervisors has implicitly sanctioned and endorsed the Po licing Program.
19. Plaintiffs Latoya Brown, Lawrence Blackmon, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Mann ing, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, N icholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, and Betty Jean Williams Tucker (collectively, tl1e "named Plaintiffs") are among the thousands ofvictims ofMadison County's Policing Program. Most of the named Plaintiffs have been subjected to the MCSD's unreasonable race-based searches and seizmes multiple t imes in recent months and years. The named Plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of similarly situated Black individuals who have been, are now, or will be subject to the MCSD's racially d iscriminatory Policing Program described herein (the "Class" or " C lass members").
20. The defendants in this action are Madison County, acting by and through the Madison Cow1ty Board of Supervisors; Sheriff Tucker, personally and as the policymaking official of t he Madison County Sheriff's Department; and Madison County Sheriff's Department Deputies John Does #1 through #6 (collectively, " Defendants").
2 1. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class members, seek relief for Defendants' violations of their rights, privileges, and immwtities secured by the Civil Rights Act of 1971 , 42 U.S .C. § 1983 ("Section 1983"), the FoLLrth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(d), et
seq. ("Title VI").
22. The named Plaintiffs seek to represent a certified class fo r the purpose of obtaining injunctive and declaratory relief only. They seek a class-wide judgment declaring that the policies, practices, and/or customs described herein violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and a class-wide injunction enjoining Defendants from continuing to implement
7

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 8 of 86
these policies, practices, and/or customs. Un less such declaratory and injunctive relief is obtained, the named Plaintiffs and Class members will continue to face a substantial threat that they will again be subj ect to the unconstitutional racially discriminatory policing practices described herein.
23. In addition, certain named Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages only for themselves.
24. Plaintiffs also seek an award of attorneys' fees and costs and such other relief as this Court deems equitable and just.
JURISDICTION & VENUE 25. This action is brought pursua11t to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 12132. 26. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal questionjurisdiction) and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (civil rightsjUiisdiction). 27. This Court is authorized to grant declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and Rule 57 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 28. This Court is authorized to award attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). 29. Venue is properly set within the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
.JURY DEMAND 30. Plaintiffs demand trial by jury in this action on each and every one of their claims.
PARTIES Plaintiffs 31. Plai11tiff LATOYA BROWN ("Ms. Brown") is a 28-year-old Black woman who has spent her entire life in Canton, Mississippi. She Lives with named Plaintiff STEVEN SMITH
8

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 9 of 86
and their three daughters in a predom inantly-Black affordable housing complex. Ms. Brown is a stay-at-home mother.
32. PlaintiffLAWRENCE BLACKMON ("Mr. Blackmon") is a 31-year-old Black man who has resided in Canton, Mississippi since 1998. Mr. Blackmon is currently enrolled in a Masters of Law program at George Washington University Law School in Washington D.C., but his permanent place ofresidence is at his grandmother' s home in Canton, Mississippi. Mr. Blackmon intends to return to Madison County on a full-time basis after completing hi s studies.
33. Pl aintiff HERBERT ANTHONY GREEN ("Mr. Green") is a 30-year-old black man who resides in Canton, Mi.ssissippi. Mr. Green is a veteran of the United States Army. He has lived in Canton for most of his life.
34. Plaintiff KHADAFY MANNING ("Mr. Manning") is a 35-year-old physically disabled Black man who resides in Canton, Mississippi. He has lived in Canton for over 20 years. Mr. Manning suffers from a painful nerve condition that makes it diftl.cult for him to walk without a cane. He is married to named PlaintiffQU INN ETTA MANNING, and they are raising three sons together. Mr. Mam1ing volunteers his time as an assistant coach for a youth T-Ball team in Canton.
35. Pl aintiffQUINNETTA MANNING ("Mrs. Manning") is a 29-year-old Black woman who was born and raised in Canton, Mississippi, where she still resides. She is married to named Plaintiff Mr. Manning, and the couple has three young sons together. Mrs. Manning is enrolled in a cosmetology program, and she also volunteers her time with a youth dance troupe.
36. Plaintiff MARVIN MCFIELD ("Mr. Mcfield" ) is a 37-year-old Black man who was born, raised, and currently resides in Flora, Mississippi. Mr. McField has a pacemaker
9

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 10 of 86
because he suffers from a serious heart cond ition. Mr. McField is a carpenter. He is manied with children.
37. PlaintiffNICK SINGLETON ("Mr. Singleton") is a 35-year-old Black man who has lived in Canton, Mississippi since 2004. Until recently, Mr. Singl eton worked in information technology at a data center. He is the father of two young boys.
38. Plaintiff STEVEN SMITH ("Mr. Smith") is a 27-year-old Black man who has
spent his entire life in Canton, Mississippi. He lives with named Plaintiff Ms. Brown and thei r three young daughters in a predominantly-Black affordable housing complex. Mr. Smith
cun·ently works at a Chinese restaurant as a wok cook. 39. Plaintiff BESSIE THOMAS ("Mrs. Thomas") is a 59-year-old Black woman who
has lived in Canton. Mississippi for the past five decades. Mrs. Thomas serves as a minister at two local churches, and she is involved in taking care of her young grandchildren. For three years, Mrs. Thomas operated a comer store in Canton.
40. Plaintiff BETT Y JEAN WILLIAMS TUCKER ("Mrs. Tucker") is a 62-year-old Black woman who was bom , rajsed, and currently resides in Canton, Mississippi. For over a
decade. Mrs. Tucker worked as a welder in a Canton manufacturing warehouse. She bas five children, twelve grandchildren, and two great grand-children. Mrs. Tucker is among the longestlived residents in her Canton neighborhood.
Defendants 41. Defendant MADISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI ("Madison County" or the "County") is a political subdivision of the State of Mississippi that can sue and be sued in its own name. Upon infom1ation and bel ief, Madi son County programs and activities, including
10

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 11 of 86
programs and activities ofthe MCSD, receive federal financial assistance.7 The County and its departments are therefore required under federal law to conduct their programs and activities in a racially and ethnically non-discriminatory manner. The "chief policy making and administrative body" of the County is, and at all times relevant hereto has been, the Madison County Board of Supervisors (the "Board of Supervisors" or the "Board"), which describes itself as ''the one body which supervises almost everything that goes on in county government."8 The Board of Supervisors is comprised of five elected Supervisors, one from each of the five districts in Madison County. For at least a decade, Defendant Madison County has had actual knowledge of a longstanding pattern of constitutional violations inflicted on the Black community by the MCSD pursuant to the Policing Program. By both its action and inaction, Defendant Madison County has either sanctioned, or been deliberately indifferent to, the MCSD ' s policy of systematically executing unreasonable searches and seizures on the basis of race.
42. Defendant RANDALL S. TUCKER is, and has been since January 2012, the Sheriff of Madison County, Mississippi. Under Mississippi law, sheriffs "are final policymakers with respect to all law enforcement decisions made within their counties."9 SheriffTucker is and was responsible for each of the unconstitutional racially discriminatory practices that comprises the Policing Program. He is either the chief architect of, or has adopted and endorsed, every one of the illegal policing tactics described herein. Sheriff Tucker is, and has been since January
7 See, e.g., Office ofthe State Auditor, Mississippi, Madison County, Mississippi: Audited Financial Statements and Special Reports For the Year Ended September 30, 2015, at 57 (Schedule ofExpenditures of Federal Awards), http://www.osa.ms.gov/documents/counties/20 15/15cMadison%20County-cpa.pdf. 8 Board of Supervisors, Madison County, Mississippi, http://madison-co.com/elected-offices/board-ofsupervisors (last visited May 5, 2017). 9 Brooks v. George Cty, Miss., 84 F.3d 157, 165 (5th Cir. 1996)(citing Huddleston v. Shirley, 787 F. Supp. 109, 112 (N.D. Miss. 1992) and Miss. Code§ 19-25-l, et seq.).
11

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 12 of 86
20 12, responsible fo r the hiring, screening, training, retention, supervision. discipline, counseling, and contro l of the MCSD 's deputies, and other personnel who are or were employed by the MCSD, including the John Doe Defendants named herein. He is sued in his offi cial capacity.
43. Defendants JOHN DOES # 1 through #6 arc, and/or were. at all limes relevant herein, deputies, emp loyees, and agents of the MCSD, a department of Madi son Co unty . John Docs# t through #6 are sued in their individual capacities. T he true names and total number of John Does# I through #6 are unknown to Plainti ffs, and therefore Plaintiffs sue these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs wi ll amend their complaint to stale the true names of John Does # I through #6 after such information has been identified.
44. At all times relevant herein, Jo hn Does# I through #6 have acted under color of State law in the course and scope of their duties and fu nct ions as agents. employees. and officers of Madison County in engaging in the actions and inactions described herein. At all times relevant herein, the Board of Supervisors, Sheriff Tucker, and John Does# l through #6 have acted for and on behalf of the County with t he power and authority vested in them as officers, agents, and employees of t he County and incidental to the lawful pursuit of their duties as officers, employees, and agents ofthe County.
45. At all times relevant herein, John Does # 1 through #6 have violated clearly established constilutional standards under the Fourth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fowieenth Amendment of which a reaso nable person would have known.
12

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 13 of 86
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
I. A Brief Overview of Madison County, Mississippi 46. Madison County is a majority-white county. According to the 2010 census,
approximately 58% of Madison County residents are white and 38% are Black. 10 The County is now and has always been acutely racially segregated.
Madison County Demographics
47. More than a decade ago, now-Chief Judge Carl. E. Stewart of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit acknowledged the "confluence of .. . geography and demography" in Madison County. 11 He stated that the resulting "racial isolation" in Madison County was "foreboding and potentially deleterious."12 Chief Judge Stewart's description of 10 Quickfacts: Madison County, Mississippi, U.S. Census Bureau,
http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table!PST045216/28089,28 (last visited May 5, 2017). 11Anderson v. School Bd. ofMadison Cty, 5 17 F.3d 292, 305 (5th Cir. 2008) (Stewart, J.) (concurring in the majority's affirmance of the district court' s grant of the Madison County School District's motion for unitary status). 12 !d.
13

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 14 of 86

segregation in Madison County still rings true today. Madison County remains divided into

predominantly Black towns, neighborhoods, and business districts and predominantly white

tovvns, neighborhoods, and business districts.

48. The County' s two largest cities are majority-white: the City of Madison (85% white; 10% Black; population 24,000)13 and Ridgeland (59% white; 33% Black; population

24,000).14 Madison County's two largest majority-Black municipalities are the city of Canton (75% Black; 20% white; 6% Latino; population 13,000) 15 and the town of Flora (5 1% Black; 47% white; population 1,800).16

Madison County, Mississippi
Yazoo City
@

..
Canton
75% Biack

Ridgeland Sate 33% Black

Madison
1 0% B iack 86% white

fB Botton Clinton

Mort

13 Quickjacts: Madison City, Mississippi, U.S. Census Bureau, https://www.census.gov/guickfacts/table/PST0452 16/2844520 (last visited May S, 2017).
14 Quickfacts: Ridgeland City, Mississippi, U.S. Census Bureau, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST0452 15/2862520 (last visited May 5, 2017).
15 Quickfacts: Canton City, Mississippi, U.S. Census Bureau, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table!PST 045215/28lll 00 (last visited May 5, 20 17).
16 Flora, Mississippi Population, CensusViewer, http://censusviewer.com/city/MS/Fiora (last visited May 5, 2017).

14

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 15 of 86
49. Madison County is the wealthiest county in Mississippi, 17 and its wealth is heavily concentrated among its white citizens. For example, the average household income in the City of Madison is more than double that in Canton ($97,000 vs. $40,000); residents of the City of Madison own t he homes in which they live at nearly double the rate of Canton residents (92% vs. 56%); and the poverty rate in the City ofMadison is a small fraction of the rate in Canton (3.5% vs. 27%). 18
50. Madison County's pervasive racial segregation has fac ilitated the MCSD 's racially discriminatory policing practices by enabling MCSD deputies to use geographic criteria to isolate and target Black residents of Madison County for unconstitutional searches and seizures. Il. The MCSD's Policing Program
51. For at least two decades, if not longer, the MCSD has imp lemented a coordinated top-down program of methodically targeting Black individuals for suspicionless searches and seizures.
52. Pursuant to the Policing Program, the MCSD employs a seri es of integrated tactics to systematically conduct unreasonable searches and seizures of persons, homes, cars, and property on the basis of race. During the course ofthese illegal searches and seizures, MCSD deputies routinely detain members of the Black community without probable cause, and often issue citations and make arrests either without legal justification or to recover outstanding fmes and fees, typically for minor infractions.
17 Mississippi Per Capita Income by County 2015, Mississippi Department o f Employment Security, http://mdes.ms.gov/media/8639/P.ci.pdf (last visited May 5, 2017). 18 Quiclifacts: Canton City, Mississippi and Madison City, Mississippi, U.S. Census Bureau, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/TNC11 0215/2811100,2844520 (last vis ited May 5, 2017).
15

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 16 of 86
53. The various unconstitutional racially discriminatory policing practices that comprise the Policing Program range in scope and severity, but they are all conducted pursuant to the MCSD's single overarching policy, custom, and/or practice of systematically conducting unreasonable searches and seizures of persons, homes, cars, and property on the basis of race . This policy, custom, and/or practice is so persistent and widespread as to practically have the force of law in Madison County.
54. Like many policing policies, practices, and customs deemed unconstitutional by federal courts and the United States Department of Justice, 19 the MCSD's Policing Program combines unlawful methods of searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment with an impennissible race-based classification in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
55. The MCSD's Policing Program also violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because race-based suspicion is integral to its functioning. The MCSD's Policing Program in fact depends on the use of race to detem1ine which individuals to target for unreasonable searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment. As such, the MCSD ' s Policing Program is a government program with an express racial classification; it is subject to, and fails, strict scrutiny.
56. The most frequently-used illegal policing tactics of the MCSD 's Policing Program are described below, and substantiated by the allegations of the named Plaintiffs in paragraphs 178 through 298 below. In addition, the MCSD also engages in a broad range of other
19 See, e.g., U.S. Department of Justice, Investigation ofthe Baltimore City Police Department (2016), https://www.juslice.gov/crllfile/883296/download; U.S. Department of Justice, Investigation ofthe Ferguson Police Department (20 15), https://www.justice.gov/sites/defaulllfi les/oP-alpressreleases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson police department report l.pdf.
16

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 17 of 86
unconstitutional racially discriminatory policing practices-including suspicionless traffic stops and suspicionless frisks ofpedestrians- that impermissibly target Black community members for unlawful searches and seizures. Taken together, these policing methods have effectively placed the Black community of Madison County under a permanent state of siege.
A. Pretextual and Highly Intrusive Vehicular Roadblocks 57. The MCSD operates a network of pretextual and highly intrusive vehicular roadblocks concentrated in and around the maj ority Black cities and neighborhoods of Madison County. These roadblocks are typically Located on roadways close to Black homes, employers of Black residents, Black-owned businesses, and civic institutions frequented by the Black community. 58. Because the MCSD targets Black communities for roadblocks, the vast majority of individuals arrested at Madison County's roadblocks are Black. Almost 81% of roadblock arrests in Madison County between May and September of 2016 were of Black individuals.
Roadblock Arrests in Madison County
May-September 2016
• % arrests ofBlack individuals • % arrests ofaU other individuals
17

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 18 of 86 59. The MCSD maintains a formal written policy (the "General Roadblocks Policy") that expressly authorizes "[a)ll [d)eputies" to "conduct random roadblocks for all traffic violations, escapees, or wanted subjects."20 The General Roadblocks Policy places no restrictions on how and when MCSD deputies may conduct these roadblocks. Significantly, the General Roadblocks Policy does not require deputies to use race-neutral criteria when se lecting roadblock locations. A copy of the MCSD' s Roadblocks Policy is attached as Exhibit A. 60. The MCSD regularly establ ishes roadblocks in Canton, the county seat and the largest majority-Black city within Madison County. Most ofthe Canton neighborhoods targeted for roadblocks are lined by quiet, residential streets, not busy highways or thoroughfares. A map depicting recent representative roadblock locations appears below.
20 General RoadbLocks. in POLICY AND PROCEDURE, Office of the Sheriff, Madison County, Mississippi. 18

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 19 of 86
61. The MCSD sometimes sets up more than one vehicular roadblock in the Canton area within a single day; multiple vehicular roadblocks within a single week are not tmcommon.
62. The MCSD rarely, if ever, locates roadblocks in the predominantly white neighborhoods and business districts of Madison County.
63. On information and belief, the MCSD does not select roadblock locations for safety and visibility. Instead, the MCSD often sets up roadblocks in poorly-lit, difficult-to-see locations. These roadblocks and checkpoints are usually manned by plainclothes MCSD deputies
19

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 20 of 86
who drive unmarked vehjcles. While these deputies may wear tactical body am1or over their plain clothes, the deputies are not otherwise i.dentifiabl e as law enforcement officers.
64. ln one instance in 2015, a Black individual (the ·'driver") was stopped at a roadblock by an MCSD deputy who waved him down with a flashlight while stancting in the middle of a dark and isolated road . There were no other law enforcement vehicles or any other signs of a roadblock. The driver repotied that if he had not been paying close attention , he could have struck the MCSD deputy because the deputy was barely visible. The MCSD deputy asked the driver to get out of the car, even though there was no basis for reasonable suspicion. Only after searching the driver unlawfull y did the MCSD deputy pem1it the driver to proceed.
65. Often, the MCSD 's roadblocks are " roving" in nature. Deputies will sometimes drive away after a short time to set up a roadblock at another location nearby. At other times, plainclothes deputies will park their vehicles in one location and walk to a different street corner to flag down motorists with flashlights.
66. The MCSD also sets up semi-concealed roadblocks within the parking lots of Madison County 's majority-Black housing complexes. These roadblocks are usually located at the sole operational entry and exit to the complexes. A map depicting recent representative roadblock locations appears below. These roadblocks unreasonably violate Black residents ' legitimate expectations ofprivacy in and around their own homes, and unconstitutionally restrict their freedom to leave and return to their homes unimpeded by govemrnent intrusion.
20

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 21 of 86
67. Once an MCSD deputy stops a vehicle at a roadblock, the deputy typically requires both the driver of the vehicle and any passengers riding in the vehicle to provide a driver's license or another form of identification. The MCSD deputy usually runs these identifications against police databases to determine whether the detained individuals can be arrested to collect unpaid fines and fees owed to the County.
21

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 22 of 86
68. In the experience of named PlaintiffMrs. Tucker, who has been repeatedly stopped at the MCSD's roadblocks, MCSD deputies do not fol low a standard operating procedure in conducting these roadblocks. MCSD deputies have sometimes asked Mrs. Tucker to produce her driver's license and proof of her insurance, but at other times they have on ly asked for her license. MCSD deputies have usually taken Mrs. Tucker' s license and checked it for unpaid fin es, but sometimes the MCSD deputy running the roadblock has just glanced at her license and waved her through.
69. Traveling through the MCSD's roadblocks can take 10 to 20 minutes per vehicle, even when MCSD deputies do nothing more than check identification. These de]ays are sometimes compounded when MCSD deputies conduct suspicionless searches of Black motorists, their passengers, and their vehicles during these stops.
70. The MCSD does not generally provide any advance notice of its roadblocks. However, the MCSD recently published a notice of planned roadblocks (the "Roadblock Notice") that was posted on social media. The Roadblock Notice stated that the MCSD "will have" a roadblock "at one or more of' of dozens of listed locations between January I 9, 2017 and January 22,2017.21 The Roadblock Notice was so overbroad that it effectively provided no notice at al l. A copy of the Roadblock Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
71. For members of the Black community, the MCSD 's roadblocks are much more than an inconvenience. Passing through these unconstitutionally intmsive roadblocks is fraught with the potential for harassment, intimidation. demeaning searches, baseless citations, and possibly even arrest and subsequent incarceration.
21 The Roadb lock Notice refers to "checkpoints" rather than " roadblocks." However, please note the MCSD uses the terms " roadblock" and " checkpoint" interchangeably when referring to the type of roadblocks described herein.
22

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 23 of 86
72. Black comm unity members therefore go to great lengths to avoid the MCSD's roadblocks. They rely on an informal system of warnings communicated by friends and fami ly through socia l media, texts, and phone calls. Black ind·ividuals often change their travel and personal plans based on the presence of these roadblocks.
73. For example, one of the named P laintiffs in this action, Mrs. Tucker, devotes a great deal of time and effort to finding out the locations ofMCSD' s roadblocks. She uses phone call ing trees, Facebook pages, smart phone apps, and te:>.'ting lists to get news of the roadblocks. Although Mrs. Tucker has a valid license, registration, and insurance, she frequently rearranges her life to avoid the MCSD' s roadblocks, typically by cancelling her plans and not leaving the house to see family or fr iends.
74. One private Facebook grou p page that regularly warns of roadblocks in Madison County (the " Facebook Warning Page") has nearly 1,800 members, the vast majority of whom are Black. The Facebook Warning Page features messages such as "Madison County is pulling people over on bikes and everything" and " Roadblock on maple by the tracks! They got their lights off." According to recent posts, the MCSD has set up roadblocks outside of churches, the Madison County Department of Human Serv ices office (which issues food stamps), and fast food restaurants.
75. Many of the named Plaintiffs in this action- including Mr. McField, Mrs. Manning, Mrs. Tucker, and Mrs. Thomas-have been repeatedly stopped at the MCSD's roadblocks. One of the named Plaintiffs, Mr. Singleton, has been stopped at the MCSD's roadblocks at least 20 times in the past year.
23

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 24 of 86
l. The Primary Purpose of the MCSD's System of Roadblocks Is to Target Black Motorists for Unreasona ble Searches and Seizures
76. Under the Supreme Court's decision in City ofIndianapolis v. Edmond. 531 U.S. 32 (2000), the constitutionality of a roadblock turns on its primary purpose. The primary purpose of the Mes o ·s system of roadblocks is now and has always been to target Black motorists, their passengers, and their vehicles for unreasonable searches and seizures. The MCSD 's concentration of roadblocks in predominantly-Black areas, as wei I as at the entry and exit points of majority-Black apartment complexes, is compelling evidence of this patently unconstitutiona l primary purpose.
77. An additional or alternative primary purpose of the MCSD's system of roadblocks
is the sort of ··general interest in crime control" held unconstitutional in Edmond. A recent notice
of roadblock activity promulgated by the MCSD (the Roadblock Notice) illustrates this impermissible purpose. The Roadblock Notice lists the locations of dozens of potential roadblocks and expressly states that the "purpose" of these road blocks "will be to check for Driver's licenses, warrants and whatever else we encounter" (emphasis added). 22
78. On information and belief, MCS D deputies often use roadblock stops as a means of lookin g for contraband. Deputies regularly question Black motorists and Black passengers at roadblock stops in an effort to gain probable cause fo r conducting searches based on the individuals' expressions or answers, or the supposed odor of marij uana in the vehicle or on one of the detained individuals.
79. Another additional or alternative primary purpose of the MCSD's system of roadblocks is to enrich the County by generating municipal revenue through the collection of
22 Please note the MCSD uses the terms "roadblock" and "checkpoint'' interchangeably when referring to roa d b locks .
24

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 25 of 86
unpaid fees and fines from the County' s disempowered minority populations. This purpose is clearly impermissible under both the Fourth Amendment and the Equal Protection C lause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
80. The MCSD has refused to produce any "policies and protocols describing" the " purpose" for its roadblocks, or any records documenting either "[t]he criteria used in determining the location[s] of [these] roadblocks" or the "[p]rotocol enforced for determining which cars to stop."23 However, to the extent that the MCSD attempts to claim that the primary purpose of its roadblocks is to check for valid drivers' licenses and up-to-date vehjcle registrations, or for any other traffic safety purpose, any such stated purpose is plainly pretextual. The operation of roadblocks at the entry and exit points of majority-Black apartment complexes in quiet residential neighborhoods, rather than on heav ily-trafficked open roadways or locations wit h a history of traffic hazards, clearly demonstrates that the primary purpose of the MCSD roadblocks is not traffic safety. The absence of such roadblocks in majority -white neighborhoods, where traffic safety is of equal importance, further Jays bare the pretextual purpose ofthe MCSD' s roadblocks. Any claimed purpose oftraftic safety is also belied by the fact that MCSD deputies regularly require passengers, as well as pedestrians passing by roadblocks, to produce identification and submit to searches, as discussed in paragraphs 81 through 90.
23 See ACLU Public Records Request (Sept. 15, 20 16), Items 3(a), 4(f), and 4(n); see also Letter from Sheriff Tucker to the ACLU (Oct. 31 , 2016) (stating that the records requested in Items J(a), 4(t), and 4(n) are " deemed exempt from the PubIic Records Act" on the grou nds that " any policies that contain information that wou ld impede the Madison County Sheriffs Department in its enforcement of the law or reveal investigatory procedures used by the Department that are necessary to detect and prosecute certain crimina l behavior are exempt from production").
25

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 26 of 86
B. SuspicionJess Searches and Seizures of Black Pedestrians 81. One ofthe MCSD' s most flagrantly unconstitutional racially discriminatory policing tactics is its implementation ofpedestrian "checkpoints." 82. MCSD deputies regularly require Black pedestrians to stop at the vehicular roadblocks described above. In other words, a vehicular roadblock can at any time also serve as a pedestrian "checkpoint." On information and belief, Sheriff Tucker has authorized MCSD deputies to implement pedestrian "checkpoints" whenever and wherever they are conducting vehicular roadblocks. 83. Because the MCSD typically enforces these pedestrian "checkpoints" at the same locations as its vehicular roadblocks, the MCSD' s pedestrian "checkpoints" are also concentrated in and around the majority Black cities and neighborhoods of Madison County. 84. As a consequence, the vast majority of individuals arrested at pedestrian stops in Madison County are Black. Approximately 82% of arrests at pedestrian stops in Madison County between May and September of2016 were of Black individuals.
Pedestrian Arrests in Madison County
May-September 2016
• % arrescs of Black individuals •% arrests of all cxher individuals
26

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 27 of 86
85. Frequently, the MCSD enforces sem i-concealed pedestrian "checkpoints" concurrently with vehicular roadblocks at the sole operational entry and exit to majority- Black housing complexes. These "checkpoints'' violate Black residents ' legitimate expectations of privacy in and around their own homes, and unconsti lutionally restrict their freedom to leave and retum to their homes unimpeded by government intrusion.
86. On inf01mation and belief, MCSD deputies do not establish pedestrian checkpoints in predominantly-white towns, residential neighborhoods or busi ness districts.
87. Once an MCSD deputy stops a Black pedestrian at a "checkpoint," the deputy typically requires the pedestrian provide a driver' s license or another fmm of identification. The MCSD deputy usually runs the pedestrian's identification against pol ice databases to detennine whether the detained individual can be arrested to collect unpaid fines and fees. In addition, MCSD deputies often subject pedestrians passing tlu-ough these "checkpoints" to demeaning and unconstitutional searches.
88. On information and belief, the purpose of these pedestrian "checkpoints" is to conduct a fishing expedition to fi nd any possible basis, no matter how tenuous, for issuing citations to and/or anesting members of the Black community.
89. For example, in January 2017, one of the named Plaintiffs in this action- Mr. Smith- was arrested after being detained and illegally searched at a pedestrian "checkpoint" at the entrance to the predominantly-Black affordable housing complex where he resides. Mr. Smith was arrested after a check of his identification revealed that he had outstanding fines and fees.
27

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 28 of 86
90. There is clearly no constitutional basis for MCSD deputies to require Black pedestrians to pass through " checkpoints" as they are coming in and out of their homes or going about theiT dai ly activities. Forc.ing citizens of the United States to "show their papers" in th is fashion runs afoul of the law as well as the most basic norms of decency in domestic po licing.
C. Warrantless and Consentless Searches of the Homes of Black Residents 91. In the course of investigating potential offenses, searching for missing persons, or canvasing for individuals with outstanding arrest warrants, MCSD deputies frequently enter the homes of Black residents of Madison County without seru·ch warrants and without consent. 92. While they are in Black residents ' homes, MCSD deputies routinely engage in searches and seizures that further violate the Fourth Amendment. These unconstitutional practices include the detention ru1d restraint of Black individuals not suspected of any wrongdoing, and ru·e often accompanied by the use of force. 93. For example:
a) In June 2016, six white male MCSD deputies forci bly entered the fan1ily home of Mr. and Mrs. Mruming, two named Plaintiffs in this action. The deputies did not have a search warrant. The deputies attempted to coerce Mr. Manning to write a false witness statement against a neighbor's boyfriend. When Mr. Manning refused, one of the deputies handcuffed him, choked bim, and beat him in the back seat of an MCSD law enforcement ve l1icle.
b) In March 2016, two MCSD deputies forci bly entered the home ofMr. Blaclanon, one of the named Plaintiffs in this action. The MCSD deputies claimed they had a warrant for the ruTest of one of Mr. Blackmon's re latives, but the deput ies refused to provide Mr. Blackmon with an opportunity to review the warrant. One of the deputies forced Mr.
28

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 29 of 86
Blackmon to the ground at gunpoint, and handcuffed his wrists beh ind his back. The deputies then proceeded to search Mr. Blackmon's entire residence, ostensibly for the purpose of finding the person named in the waHant. The MCSD deputies searched inside Mr. Blackmon's dresser drawers and other small closed compartments that could not possibly conceal an adult man.
c) In October 2015, MCSD deputies forcibly entered the home ofMr. Smith, a named Plaintiff in this action. The deputies did not provide Mr. Smith with a search warrant, but they claimed to be looking for a missing person. Without Mr. Smith's consent, the deputies conducted a search of Mr. Smith's home, including examining inside bureau drawers and other small closed compartments that could not reasonably contain a person. One of the deputies even woke up Mr. Smith's daughter, who was only three years old at the time, to ask her if she knew anything about the missing person.
d) Several years ago, MCSD deputies stormed into a celebratory barbecue hosted by Mrs. Tucker, one of the named plaintiffs in this action, at her home in Canton. Without a warrant or any reason for suspecting criminal activity , the MCSD deputies conducted searches ofMrs. Tucker's guests, including by digging into their pockets. The MCSD deputies also got down on their hands and knees to search Mrs. Tucker' s patio. Find ing nothing, they left without explanation.
94. It is common for MCSD deputies to harass Black residents while they are walking on the grounds of their apartment complexes, sitting on their patios, or spending time in their own yards, particularly after the sun has set. MCSD deputies often interrupt Black community members' leisure and family time with demands for identification, intrusive questioning and
29

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 30 of 86
suspicionless searches. MCSD deputies also regularly instruct Black community members to disperse or return indoors, and threaten arrest and jail time for noncompliance.
95. The MCS D's tmconstitutional policing practices in and around Black community members' homes discourage Black residents from spending time outdoors, and from gathering outside with friends and family. These tactics effectively impose a "curfew" pursuant to which being outside of one's own home after dark is reason enough to be detained or arrested. The MCSD's hostile and unreasonable approach to policing the Black community violates Black residents' reasonable expectations of privacy in their own homes, and greatly dimini shes their sense of personal security.
96. On information and belief, the MCSD does not engage in these unconstitutional policing practices in the homes, yards, and neighborhoods of Madison County's white residents.
D. "Jump Out" Patrols 97. The MCSD also engages in systematic illegal searches and seizures of Black community members through "Jump Out" patrols that aim to take Black community members by surprise for suspicionless searches and seizures. These patrols are conducted by plainclothes MCSD deputies driving unmarked veh icles. 98. The "Jump-Out" deputies often target groups ofyOtmg Black men walking or riding bicycles together. 99. On infom1ation and bel ief, the " Jump Out'' deputies select their targets purely on the basis of race and without any reasonable suspicion or probable cause; MCSD deputies do not target white residents for "Jump Out" patrols.
30

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 31 of 86
100. When the "Jump Out" deputies encounter their intended targets, the deputies rapidly exit their vehicles and proceed to conduct unreasonable and extensive searches of every individual.
101. For example: a) In October 2015, named Plaintiff Mr. Green and two Black male friends
were stopped by a "J ump Out" patrol when they were walking clown the street. A plainclothes MCSD deputy emerged from an unmarked vehicle and searched the men, even though he had no reasonable suspicion to do so. On information and belief, when the deputy found some cash in one of Mr. Green's friend 's pants pocket, the deputy demanded to know how that individual obtained the funds, repeatedly referring to him as a " Black dope boy." The deputy released Mr. Green and his friends after finding no illegal drugs or other grounds for arrest.
b) Approximately five years ago, named Plaintiff Mrs. Tucker witnessed two "Jump Out" patrol deputies tackle her teenage grandson to the ground. The deputies conducted an aggressive search ofher grandson's pockets. They left abruptly after finding nothing. Before the deputies descended upon Mrs. Tucker's grandson, he had been fixing his brother's bicycle in his front yard.
102. Often, the' "Jwup Out" deputies handcuff Black individuals while they conduct their searches. and threaten arrest and jail time for failing to comply with their demands. The "Jwnp Out" deputies also threaten onlookers and passers-by with an·est if they do not immediately leave the scene or return to their homes.
31

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 32 of 86
103. " Jump Out'' patrols frequently take place outside ofB lack-ov.rned businesses, causing customers to fl ee. On information and belief, the MCSD does not employ "Jum p Out" patrols in the vicinity of white-owned businesses.
104. On information and bel iet~ the M CSD uses these " Jump Out'' patrols to deter customers from patronizing Black-owned businesses. The "Jump Out" patrols, together with the MCSD's other d iscriminatory policing tactics, have dramatical ly affected t he profitab ility of Black-owned businesses. III. Race-Based Statistical Disparities in Policing Outcomes Provide CompeUing
Evidence of the MCSD's Policing Program 105. The MCSD's Policing Program has resulted in stark racial disparities in pol icing outcomes that cannot be explained by alternative non-race-based factors. 106. For examp le, a lthough only 38 %, of M a dison Cou n ty r esidents a r c Black,24 app r oximately 73% of arrests Madison County between May and September of 2016 wer e of Black individuals. Only 23 % of an·ests during this time period were of white individuals, even though Madison County is 57% white.25 These statistics suggest t hat the arrest rate fo r Black individuals is nearly five times the arrest rate for white individuals in Madison County.26
24 Based o n 2010 Census data. See Quickfacts: Madison County, Mississippi, U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST04521 6/28089,28 (last visited May 5, 201 7). 15 Based on 2010 Census data. See Quickfacts: Madison County, Mississippi, U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/28089,28 ( last visited May 5, 20 17). 26 If the MCSD's arrest rates were proportional to the population, then approximately 38% of arrests would be of Black indiv iduals and approximately 57% of arrests would be of white indi viduals. The rate of arrests of Black individuals in Madison County is roughly double this expected percentage (73%, o r approximately 2 times the percentage of Madison County's population that is Black). The rate of aJTests of white individuals is less than half the expected percentage (23%, or approximately 0.4 times the expected percentage). In other words, the arrest rate for Black individ uals is nearlyjive times the arrest rate for white individuals in Madison County.
32

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 33 of 86

Arrest Rates in Madison County Compared to Population Percentages by Race
• % of Madison County's Population • % ofArrests in Madison County (May-Sept. 20 16)

white Black
0%

73tyo
ef arrests were of Black
llldlvlduals

73"re

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

107. Moreover, a disproportionate number of the MCSD' s arrests are made in majority-Black towns. For example, the majority-Black city of Canton represents approximately 14% ofMadison County' s population, but accounted for nearly 47% of arrests made in Madison County between May and September 20 16.

33

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 34 of 86

Arrests in Madison County by Town
(May-September 2016)
75%

700A • % ofTotal Arrests in Madison County

• % of Madison Cowtty's Total Population Represented by the Town

600/o

• % of Town's Population That Is Black

51% 500/o

20%
10%
0%
Canton

25%

33%

8%
I~
Flora

10%
I
City of Madison

12%
I Ridgeland

Populationpercentages based2010 U.S. Census data.

108. Because the MCSD targets Black communities for roadblocks and suspicionless pedestrian stops, the vast majority of individuals arrested at roadblocks and pedestrian stops in Madison County are Black. Between May and September 20 16, 81% of arrests at roadblocks and 82% of arrests at pedestrian stops in Madison County were of Black individuals.
34

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 35 of 86

Arrests in Madison County
(May-September 2016)
100%

80%
70% 60% 50% 40"/o

20%

10"/o

0% Madison County D'emographlcs

Total Arrests RoadblockAJ·rests

Pedestrian Arrests

Populationpercentage based2010 US. Censusdata.
109. These dramatic racial disparities in policing outcomes have existed for years. A 201 4 article in The Clarion-Ledger reported that while only 34% of Madison County's

35

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 36 of 86
population was Black at the time, 78% of those arrested in Madison County were Black-among the largest disparity ofthe Mississippi counties cited.27
110. Similarly, an investigation conducted by USA Today revealed that the MCSD's 2011-2012 arrest rates were 92.4 per 1000 for Black residents, as opposed to only 15.9 per 1000 for non-Black residents.28
111. These statistical disparities serve as compelling evidence that the MCSD's Policing Program violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. IV. TheMCSD's Policing Program Is Longstanding and Deeply-Entrenched
112. The MCSD's Policing Program is a deeply-entrenched policy, custom, and/or practice that has been in existence for years. The program has its roots in Madison County's long h.istory of unconstitutional, racially discriminatory policing practices.
113 . During the Civil Rights era, Madison County Sheriff Billy Noble ("Sheriff Noble'') was known for his "infamous road blocks,"29 and his practice of"often arrest[ing] and jail[ing] black folk because he felt like it."30
114. Billy Noble remained Sheriff through the 1980s. He and other Madison County officials were subject to a consent judgment regarding jail conditions in Madison County, including racially discriminatory practices.31 SheriffNoble's successor, Sheriff Jessie Hopkins,
27 Therese Apel, Mississippi Race, arrest rates examined, THE CLARION-LEDGER (Nov. 19, 2014), http://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/20 14/ 11/19/race-arrest-rates-exam ined/19307959/. 28 Brad Heath, Racial gap in U.S. arrest rates: 'Staggering disparity ', USA TODAY (Nov. 18, 2014), http://www.usatoday.com/stmy/news/nation/2014/ ll/18/ ferguson-black-arrest-rates/ 19043207/. 29 Hunter Gray, Ghosts ofMadison County (Mississippi), BEARWTHOUTBORDERS (Oct. 7, 2011), https://1ists.mayfirst.org/pipermail/bearwithoutborders/20 11-0ctober/004854.html. 30 Socrates Garrett, My Mississippi History, MISSISSIPPI LINK (April 27, 2006), 2006 WLNR 27688973. 31 See. e.g., Cooper v. Noble, 33 F.3d 540 (5th Cir. 1994).
36

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 37 of 86
was held in contempt for violations of this consent judgment,32 and complaints regarding the MCSD's racially discriminatory practices in connection with its management ofthe Madison County Detention Center have continued to the present day.33
11 5. SheriffTucker' s immediate predecessor, Toby Trowbridge ("Sheriff Trowbridge"), served as the Sheriff of Madison County from 1999 until 20 11. Sheriff Trowbridge was one of the key architects and most ardent enforcers of the Policing Program. Under his leadership, the MCSD executed thousands of unreasonable searches and seizures of Black motorists, pedestrians, homes, and vehicles.
116. Sheriff Trowbridge's tmconstitutional, racially discriminatory policing practices were widely known throughout Madison County.
117. In 2004, the community activist group Citizens Against Racial Proftling spoke out against Sheriff Trowbridge 's racial profiling and targeting of Black community members in Madison County.34
118. In 2006, a group of Canton residents ("Concerned Citizens of Canton") presented the Madison County Board of Supervisors with a petition bearing 664 signatures demanding an end to "frequent roadblocks in the predominantly black neighborhoods," "the excessive force and brutality administered by police officers," and "racial profiling."35
32 See id. at 545. 33 See, e.g., Letter Regarding Federal Inmates in Madison County Detention Center, FEDERAL PUBUC DEFENDER, NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN DISTRJCTS OF MISSISSlPPI (April ll, 2008), http://ms.fd.org/index files/index fi les/Madison%20Jail%201etter.-gdf. 34 Adam Lynch, Crossing the Line?, JACKSON FREE PRESS (Sept. 8, 2004), http://www.j acksonfreepress .com/news/2004/sep/ 08/cross ing-the-line/ . 35 Roadblocks questioned in Canton, THECLARION-LEDGER (July 18, 2006) (2006 WLNR 25321982).
37

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 38 of 86
119. In July 2006, Canton resident Lauren Elaine attended a Madison County Board of Supervisors meeting on beha lf of the Concemed Citizens of Canton. Sheriff Trowbridge was present at the meeting, but he refused to meet with representatives from the Concerned C itizens of Canton. Sheriff Trowbridge denied the use of racial profiling, and stated that the MCSD would continue using roadblocks as a policing practice.
120. On infonnation and belief, the Madison County Board of Supervisors took no action to investi gate or address the Concerned C itizens of Canton 's claims. However, for a period of time after the petition was submitted, there was a noticeable decrease in madblocks in Canton, but a corresponding uptick in Flora roadblocks.36
121. According to a July 2007 article in The Clarion-Ledger, District 5 Supervisor Paul Griffin (''Supervisor Griffin"), who is Black, said that many people in Madison County were aware that the MCSD was perceived as targeting Black community members, and had tried to get Sheriff Trowbridge to meet with his critics.37 However, Supervisor Griffin stated that " [t]here is a limit to what the Board of Supervisors can do because the [S]heriff is elected by the people to do his job."38
122. In October 2007, a group ofFlora residents ("Concerned Citizens II of Flora") claimed to have video evidence demonstrating that that the MCSD had been setting up roadblocks in predominantly Black neighborhoods, sucl1 as Magnolia Heights, while not doing
36 Elizabeth Crisp, Flora group targets Madison Co. deputies, THECLAR ION-LEDGER (October 29, 2007) 2007 WLNR 27805955. 37 is ~ystemfair7, TI-lE CLARION-LEDGER (July 22, 2007) (2007 WLNR 27765629). 38 Id.
38

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 39 of 86
the same in predominantly white neighborhoods.39 The group demanded documentation concerning Sheriff Trowbridge's roadblock policies and practices. Sheriff Trowbridge refused either to provide any such documentation or to meet with representatives of the Concerned C itizens II ofFiora.40
123. According to a January 2008 article in the Madison County Journal, Sheriff Trowbridge "generally receive[d] very high marks from [the Madison County Board of Supervisors]."41 The article noted that Sheriff Trowbridge has "been the subject of complaints from African-Americans living in Canton and Flora who say he practices racial profiling."
124. In November 2007, SheriffTrowbridge denied charges of racial profiling at a meeting of the Madison County Board of Supervisors.42 Three white members of the Board of Supervisors expressed thei r support for Sheriff Trowbridge during the meeting. However, former District 4 Supervisor Karl Banks ("Supervisor Banks"), who is Black, expressed his disappointment at the way the Board of Supervisors had addressed the issue of racial profiling. Then-Supervisor Banks stated that he routinely fielded complaints about the MCSD, and said that Sheriff Trowbridge should work with people to change the department's image. "The conversation today was about a feeling in the community... . I know, as an African American,
39 Muslim group could enter the fray in Flora, MADISON COUNTY J OURNAL (Oct. 25, 2007), http://www.on linemadison.com/Content/NEWS/Local-News/Article/Muslim-group-could-enter-the-rrayin-Fiora/l/1 / 19402. 40 Id. 41 New supervisors take office Friday, MADISON COUNTY J OURNAL (Jan. 2, 2008), hltp://www.on linemadison.com/Co ntent/Default/Local-News/Artic le!New-supervisors-take-offtceFriday/- 3 / l / 1 9 7 0 1. 42 Elizabeth Crisp, Racial profiling accusations thrown at Madison sheriffin board meeting, T HE CLARION-LEDGER (Nov. 6, 2007), 2007 WLNR 27805274.
39

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 40 of 86
that there is a real feeling in the community that the [Sheriff's] department is discriminating against people." 43
125. None of the minutes for the Board of Supervisors' meetings reference claims or discussions of racial profil ing.44 However, minutes from the November 19, 2007 Board of Supervisors meeting ind icates that the Board authorized Sheriff Trowbridge to use $50,000 in grant funds for " public safety checkpoints."45 Because the MCSD uses the terms "roadblock" and "checkpoint" interchangeably, these "public safety checkpoints" may have encompassed the racially discriminatory roadblocks described herein.
126. The Clarion Ledger reported that of the 92 official MCSD roadblocks conducted in 2007, many were set up in areas that have higher concentrations of Black or Hispanic residents. 46 The Clarion Ledger also reported that more roadblocks were conducted in Canton and in unincorporated areas north of Canton than in any other area in 2007, and that roadblocks were often conducted in the same places multiple times throughout the year.47
127. In 2008, a number of civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Mississippi Immigrant Rights Alliance, and Citizens Against Racial Profiling, cal1ed
43 Id. 44 The Madison County Government's website contains a functionality that allows the user to search an e lectronic archive of the Board of Supervisors' meeting minutes by keyword. Keyword-searching this archive revea led no references to "racial profi ling" or synonymous terms in the Board of Supervisors ' meeting minutes. See Board Minutes: Searching Minutes by Keyword, MADrSON COUNTY MJSSJSSrPPI, http://www.madison-co.corn/electcd-officcs/board-of-supervisors/boardminutes.php?search type=keyword. '15 Minutes ofthe Board ofSupervisors ofMadison County, Mississippi (November 19, 2007), http://www.madison-co.com/ images/admin/ pdfs/465 47418 Minutes I I -1.9-07 {Final).pdf. 46 Elizabeth Crisp, A show offrustration, THE CLARION-LEDG ER (March 28, 2008) (2008 WLNR 26594510). 47 Jd.
40

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 41 of 86
for the resignation ofSheriffTrowbridge for unfairly targeting Blacks and Latinos through racial profiling and roadblocks.48 Once again, Sheriff Trowbridge denied engaging in racial profiling and refused to meet with his critics.49
128. On March 27, 2008, protestors conducted a march in opposition to Sheriff
Trowbridge' s racial profiling practices.5° Protest organizer David Archie issued a press release
stating that: "Over the years since the election of Toby Trowbridge as sheriff of Madison County, numerous individuals have brought forth claims of harassment, intimidation, discrimination and outright brutality by the Madison County sheriffs department. ... Racial profiling and deputy misconduct are widespread and well known."51
129. In 2009, SheriffTrowbridge expressed his opposition to a proposed bill to outlaw racial profiling in Mississippi. However, the police chiefs of two Madison County cities, Canton and Ridgeland, both testified that racial profiling is a problem in Mississippi.52 The Canton police chief is Black; the Ridgeland police chief is white.
130. From 2000 until January 2012, current Madison County Sheriff Tucker served as an MCSD deputy under SheriffTrowbridge. In 2002, Sheriff Tucker became Captain of the MCSD's Narcotics Division. Then-Deputy Tucker had full knowledge of the Policing Program,
48 Julie Straw, Groups Accuse SheriffofRacial Profiling, WS NEWS Now, http://vvww.msnewsnow.com/Global/storv.asp?S=8068507. See also Julie Straw, Civil Liberties Groups Want Madison County Sherif!Gone, AMERICANS FOR LEGAL IMMIGRATION PAC (March 26, 2008), https://www.a1ipac.us/fl2/ms-civil-1iberties-groups-want-madison-county-shcriff-gone-10265 6-print/. 49 WS NEWSNow, infra note 44. 50 Adam Lynch, Canton Police Arrest Protesters, JACKSON FREE PRESS (March 27, 2008), ht tp:1/www .jacksonfreepress .corn/news/200 8/ mar/27Ican ton-po lice-arrest-pro testers/ . 51 ld. 52 Elizabeth Crisp, House panel considers bill to outlaw racial profiling, T HE CLARJON-LEDGER (Jan. 14, 2009) (2009 WLNR 19779141).
41

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 42 of 86
and he personally implemented many of the unconstitutional racially discriminatory policing practices that comprise the Policing Program.
131. For example, around six years ago, then-Deputy Tucker and other MCSD deputies stormed into the home of named Plaintiff Mr. Singletonjust minutes after Deputy Tucker personally delivered a package to Mr. Singleton' s home. The package was addressed to a relative who did not reside with Mr. Singleton and was not at Mr. Singleton's home at the time. Mr. Singleton' s brother-in-law, who was at Mr. Singleton's home, picked up the package and brought it inside. As soon as he did so, Tucker and his team barged into Mr. Singleton's home. They forced Mr. Singleton, his brother-in-law, and his sister to lay on the floor while they searched Mr. Singleton's home. Mr. Singleton' s three-year-old son was present in the home at the time. When Mr. Singleton's sister asked then-Deputy Tucker whether they had a search warrant, Tucker pointed to the box and said: "I don't need a search warrant. That box is my search warrant."
132. In 2011, then-Deputy Tucker ran for Sheriff. During his campaign, then-Deputy Tucker stated that he "want[ed] to maintain the quality oflaw enforcement that we have under SheriffTrowbridge."53 He also said: " (a]s Madison County Sheriff, I will continue the high level oflaw enforcement and justice Madison County residents expect and have enjoyed under Sheriff Toby Trowbridge."54 On information and belief, these statements were coded promises to continue the Policing Program.
53 Lacey McLaughlin, Making Amends, JACKSON FREE PRESS, (Aug. 17, 2011), http://www.jacksonfree press.com/news/20 11/aug/ 17/ ma kin g-amends/ . 54 Madison County Sheriff's Deputy Captain Randy Tucker to Run for Madison County Sheriff; Y'ALL POLITICS, Jan. 19, 20 l L, http:// www.yaUp olit ics.com/index.pbp/yp/postJ madison county sheriffs deputy captain randy tucker to run for madison coun/ .
42

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 43 of 86
133. On November 8, 2011, then-Deputy Tucker was elected Sheriff of Madison County. He took office in January 2012. V. Sheriff Tucker Has Adopted, Implemented, and Expanded the Policing Program
134. Upon taking office, SheriffTucker immediately adopted the Policing Program in its entirety. In a memo to all MCSD deputies and employees dated January 3, 2012, Sheriff Tucker stated that "[t]he policies and procedures under the administration of Sheriff Toby Trowbridge shall remain in place and effective as the policies and procedures for the administration of Sheriff Randy Tucker."55
135. Since then, SheriffTucker has not only implemented the Policing Program but expanded its scope by , among other actions, enacting or maintaining a written roadblock policy that sanctions unconstitutional racially discriminatory roadblocks.
136. In essence, SheriffTucker has empowered MCSD deputies with enhanced authority and implicit encouragement to target the members of Madison County ' s Black com mun ity for unreasonable searches and seizures.
137. One of the named Plaintiffs in this action, Mr. Blackmon, rep01ts that the MCSD's deputies have become even more disrespectful towards Black community members since Tucker became Sheriff. According to Mr. Blackmon, MCSD deputies now "terrorize the community like a gang would."
55 Memo from Sheliff Tucker to al l MCSD deputies and employees (Jan. 3, 20 12). The memo stated that "[v]ariations to these policies and procedures may be made at the discretion of the Sheriff." As discussed herein, Sheriff Tucker subsequently changed a few of Sheriff Trowbridge's policies and procedures. On information and belief, these changes were made to implement, enforce, and expand the Policing Program .
43

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 44 of 86
A. Sheriff Tucker Has Enacted a Written Roadblock Policy That Sanctions Unconstitutional Racially Discriminatory Roadblocks
138. Sheriff Tucker has enacted or maintained a written policy (the General Roadblocks Policy) that expressly allows MCSD deputies to "conduct random roadblocks" without specifying any restrictions on how and when MCSD deputies may conduct these roadblocks.56
139. The General Roadblocks Policy fails to set forth any "explicit, neutral limitations on the conduct of i_ndividual officers)' as required under Supreme Court precedentY Notably, the policy does not req uire MCSD deputies to use race-neutral criteria in selecting locations for roadblocks.
140. In its entirety, the General Roadblocks Policy is only three sentences long. One of these sentences clarifies that the procedural safeg-uards that go·vern sobriety checkpoints (see below) do not apply to roadblocks. The complete text of the General Roadblocks Policy is as follows:
a. This section allows officers to conduct random roadblocksfor all traffic violations, escapees or wanted su~;ects.
b. The requirements o.fthis section shall not be confused with the policy set out above on the methods to be usedfor sobriety checkpoints.
c. All Deputies may conduct general roadblocks when necessary to checkfor traffic violations, escapees, or wanted su~jects upon the public streets, highways and right-o.f-ways within this county.
141. In stark contrast to his bare-bones General Roadblocks Policy, Sheriff Tucker's policy on "sobriety checkpoints" (the "Sobriety Checkpoint Policy") is carefully-crafted and
56 General Roadblocks, in POLICY AND PROCEDURE, Office of the Sheriff, Mad ison County, Mississippi, attached hereto as Exhibit A. 57 City ofIndianapolis v. Edmond, 53 1 U.S. 32, 49 (2000) (quoting Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979)).
44

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 45 of 86

establishes clear limits on the authority of MCSD deputies to establish such checkpoints. Among

other procedural safeguards, the Sobriety Checkpoint Policy requires MCSD deputies to:

•

"[s]atisfy federal, state and local requirements" in establishing and conducting

sobriety checkpoints;

•

" [c]onduct [sobriety] checkpoints with a minimal amount of intrusion or motorist

inconvenience";

•

use "[s]pecial care" to "warn approaching motorist[s] of the sobriety checkpo int";

•

specify objective criteria for selecting which motorists to stop at any given

sobriety checkpoint; and

•

specifY the "dialogue and educational material to be used by [sobriety] checkpoint

lP]ersonnel. " 58

A copy of this Sobriety Checkpoint Policy is attac hed as Exhibit C. i 42. On information and belief, Sheriff Tucker' s djfferent approaches to sobriety
checkpoints and " general" roadblocks reflect his racially discriminatory approach to policing the residents of Mad ison County. The Sobriety Checkpo int Poli cy is designed to protect the rights of white residents of Madison County, who may be stopped at sobriety checkpoints but who almost never encounter general roadblocks. The General Roadblocks Policy, on the other hand, is structured to give MCSD deputies complete authority to establ ish roadblocks targeting Black residents as and when they see fit.
143. Under color ofthis unconstitutionally vague and permissive General Roadblock Policy, and with the tacit support of Sheriff Tucker, MCSD deputies regularly establish illegal roadblocks to harass Black individuals in Madison County with unconstitutional searches and seizures.

58 Sobriety Checkpoint Guidelines, in POLICY AND PROCEDURE, Office of the Sheriff, Madison County, M ississippi.
45

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 46 of 86
144. To the extent Defendants contend that the General Roadblocks Policy is constitutional, which it is plainly not, the MCSD has a pattern or practice of noncompliance with its own policy. As discussed herein, the MCSD conducts roadblocks for impermissible purposes unrelated to the need to "check for traffic violations, escapees, or wanted subjects."
145. Insofar as Defendants claim that the roadblocks complained of herein are established pursuant to the Sobriety Checkpoint Policy, the MCSD has a pattern and practice of noncompliance with this policy as well. VI. Sheriff Tucker Has Been Deliberately Indifferent to the Constitutional Violations
Caused by the Policing Program 146. Sheriff Tucker has long known of the constitutional violations suffered by the Black residents of Madison County as a result of the Policing Program. On infom1ation and belief, these harms a.re in fact the intended purpose and result of Sheriff Tucker's own po licies, practices, and customs. 147. Sheri.ffTucker has been deliberately indifferent to the constitutional violations caused by the Policing Program. Among other actions and inactions, he has: (1) on information and belief, failed to investigate a Black MCSD deputy' s complaint ofracially discriminatory poLicing practices and the unjustified use of physical force against Black community members; (2) hired a deputy with a documented rustory of misconduct involving the excessive use of force; (3) chosen not to establish any rules or regulations prohibiting racial bias in policing_; (4) decided not to maintain basic data on the MCSD 's policing practices or Madison County's municipal crime statistics; and (5) stopped maintaining records of complaints against MCSD deputies.
46

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 47 of 86
A. On Information and Belief, Sheriff Tucker Failed to Investigate an MCSD Deputy's Claim of Unconstitutional Racially Discriminatory Policing Practices
148. In or around February 2013, one of Sheriff Tucker's own deputies, Robert
Gibson, raised concerns about the MCSD's pattern of targeting the Black residents of Madison
County for searches and seizures at roadblocks, as well as the MCSD 's unjustified use of
physical force against Black community members.
149. On information and belief, SheritiTucker failed to conduct any investigation into
Mr . Gibson's claims of unconstitutional racially discriminatory policing practices. Instead,
Sheriff Tucker terminated Mr. Gibson's employment in February 2013.
150. [n August 20 16, Mr. Gibson fi led suit against the MCSD asserting claims of racial discrimination and retaliation. 59
151 . According to the complaint, Mr. Gibson specifically expressed his "concerns
about racially discriminatory practices that affected both the [MCSD] employees and the
community." Mr. Gibson addressed what he found to be a pattern of" white officers using
excessive force and beating black individuals" as well as the MCSD's practice of"setting up
roadblocks primarily in the minority neighborhoods.''60 Mr. Gibson ' s claims remain pending.
59 Jimm ie E. Gates, Former Madison deputy files discrimination lawsuit, THECLARJON-LEDGER, (Aug. 3 I, 2016), http://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/20 16/08/31/ former-madison-deputy-flies discrimination-lawsuit/89650260/; see also Second Amended Complaint, Gibson v. Madison County at 1111 37-39, No. 16 Civ. 633 (S.D. Miss. Oct. 25, 2016). 60 See Second Amended Complaint, Gibson v. Madison County at~~ 37-39, No. 16 Civ. 633 (S.D. Miss. Oct. 25, 2016). Mr. Gibson 's suit was brought fo llowing a determination by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that "the evidence obtained in the investigation established reasonable cause to believe that [Mr. Gibson] was discri minated against in violation ofTitle Vll of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as amended"; that "[c]reditable evidence disclosed that the [MCSD's] promotional policy and practices were not uniformly applied to both races and were subjective at best"; and that "[t]he evidence also showed that shortly after [Mr. Gibson' s] protest, he was singled out for criticism and discharged." See id. at Ex. B (EEOC Determination).
47

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 48 of 86
B. Sheriff' Tucker Hired a Deputv with a Documented History of Misconduct Involving the Excessive Usc of Force
152. Sheriff Tucker not only fails to screen his deputies, but he has on at least one occasion intentionally hired a deputy with a documented history of misconduct involving the excessive use of force.
153. fn 1997, Slade Moore, an officer wi th the Jackson Police Department, shoved an anestee' s face into a concrete floor, pressed his fingers into the anestee's eyes, and rolled the anestee' s face back and forth across the concrete floor. 61
154. The arrestee subsequently sued the City of Jackson. The Mi ssissippi Court of Appeals held that the City of Jackson was not immune from suit because of the egregious and umeasonable nature of Deputy Moore's conduct, and awarded the arrestee $25,000 in damages.62
155. The Jackson Police Department fired Moore for his " use of excessive force in arresting" the plaintiff, as well as his "history of using excessive force in making anests."63
156. Despite Moore' s record of mi sconduct, SheriffTucker hired Moore as an MCSD deputy. Deputy Moore contLnues to serve as a member of the MCSD' s force.
157. On information and belief, Deputy Moore has played an integral role in implementing the MCSD ' s Policing Program.
C. Sheriff Tucker Has Not Established any Rules or Regulations Prohibiting Racial Bias in Policing
158. For years, SheriffTucker and the MCSD have tielded complaints of racial profiling.
61 City ofJackson v. Calcote, 910 So.2d I I03, 1107-1 108 (M iss. Ct. App. 2005). 62 Calcote, 910 So.2d at 1107-1108, 1113. 63 City oj.Jackson v. Moore, 97 So. 3d 123 8, 1239-40 (Miss. Ct. App. 20 12).
48

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 49 of 86
159. Nevertheless, Sheriff Tucker has fai led to establi sh any rules o r regu lations prohibiti ng racial bias in policing.64
160. On information and beliet~ SberiffT ucker does not train his deputies to avoid
racial bias in their policing practices; instead, he explicitly authorizes them to target Black
community members.
D. Sheriff Tucker Does Not Maintain Even Basic Data on the MCSD's Policing Practices or Municipal Crime Statistics
161. Sheriff Tucker fails to maintain basic data on the M CSD's policing practices65 or
aggregated crime statistics for municipalities in Madison County.66
162. On information and belief, Sheriff Tucker does not require MCSD deputies to
keep records on the nun1ber of roadblocks establ ished in any given week or month, the locations
of these roadblocks, the number of individuals stopped at these roadblocks, the number of anests
made at each roadblock, or the race, gender, and/or age of each individual stopped and/or
anested at each roadblock. 67
64 See ACLU Public Records Request (Sept. IS, 20 16) ( requesting " [a]ll po licies, protocols, or tra ining material describing how to address issues of racial bias in policing.''); see also Letter from Sheri ffTucke r to the ACLU (Oct. 3 I, 20 16) (stating that "[n]o pubIic records exist in response to this subparagraph [requestjng such policies].") 65 See ACLU Public Records Request (Sept. 15,20 16) (requesting data on the MCSD's roadblocks, traffic stops, and stop and fris k searches); see also Letter from Sheriff T ucker to the ACLU (Oct. 31, 20 16). 66 See AC LU Publ ic Records Request (Mar. 3, 2017) (requesting, inter alia, " [a] ll records regarding Mad ison County crime rates, including but not limited to . . . the locations (including cities or neighborhood[s]) considered to be high crime areas"); see also Letter from Sheriff Tucker to the ACLU (March 14, 20 17) (stating that the "only records the Madison County Sheriff' s Department has regarding crim e rates or crime statistics" are the Uniform Crime Reports as submitted to the Federal Bw·eau of Investigation). 67 Letter from Sheriff Tucker to the ACL U (Oct. 31, 2016) (stating that "[n]o public records exist'' with respect to the MCSD's roadblocks and/or checkpoints documenting their number, frequency, location, and/or duration; the number of stops initiated; the race, gender, and/or age of each individual stopped; the race, gender, and/or age of each ind ividual w hose driver's license was run agains t the MCSD's databases; the number of searches resulting in citations, and the reasons for these citations; the race. gender, ancl!or
49

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 50 of 86
163. On infom1ation and belief, Sheriff Tucker also does not require MCSD deputi es to document traffic stops, or essential information such as whether searches were cond ucted or arrests were made incident to traffic stops.68 In addition, Sheriff Tucker does not maintain any records concerning "stop and frisk" searches of pedestrians.69
164. Moreover, Sheriff Tucker does not track aggregated crime statistics by town or
° neighborhood. 7 For example, on information and belief, Sheriff Tucker does not maintain
statistics on the number of anests made in majority-B lack Canton as compared to majority-white Madison in any given time period.
165. On information and belief, Sheriff Tucker has chosen not to keep such data, statistics and records because they would collectively provide unmistakable proof of the existence and widespread implementation of the MCSD ' s Policing Program.
E. Sheriff Tucker Has Stopped Keeping Records of Complaints Against MCSD Deputies
166. During Sheriff Trowbridge ' s tenure, Secti on 17 of the official MCSD policy handbook stated that the Sheriff "wiH record al l comp laints" against MCSD employees " in a
age of each indiv idua l c ited; the number of arrests made and for what charges: or the race, gender, and/or age of each individual arrested.) 68 Letter fro m Sheriff Tucker to the ACLU (Oct. 3 1, 20 16) (stating that "[n]o public records ex_ist" with respect to traffic stops conducted; traffic tickets issued at these stops; traffic stops which resu lted in the search of the driver's vehic le; traffi c stop searches which resulted in the recovery of contraband; ancl/or traffic stops which resulted in aiTests.) 69 Id. (stating that "[n]o public records exist'' with respect to stops, fri sks, and/or searches conducted by MCSD deputies, including the race, gender, anellor age of the individual(s) stopped; the basis for the stop; whether any search was conducted and the basis for the search; and/or whether the stop resulted in an arrest or citation, and the basis for this arrest or citation). 70 See supra note 64.
50

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 51 of 86
pe1manent record."71 Section 17 included a sample "standard citizen complaint form ," and provided that each complaint rep01t "will include" the name of the complainant. the name of the accused, the date the complaint was received, the type of complai nt that was made, the intemal affairs repOit number for the complaint, and the final dispositio n of the complaint.
167. Since taking office, Sheriff T ucker has, on information and belief, made it official MCSD policy not to keep track of complaints against himself, hj s deputies, or any other MCSD employees. By his own admission, Sheriff Tucker "no longer uses" the "standard citizen complaint form" for recordi ng complaints. 72 Sheriff Tucker has also expressly stated that the MCSD "does not have any public records" of complaints against himself, his deputies, or any other MCSD employees because the MCSD "does not maintain a file for these complaints." 73
168. On information and bel ief, Sheriff Tucker has stopped maintaining records of citizen complaints in order to provide MCSD deputies with greater authority to target Black residents for unreasonable searches and seizures, with as little monitoring and oversight as possible.
71 Section 17, Investigations: Internal Affairs, in POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, Office of the Sheriff, Madison County, Mississippi, Section 17, Investigations: Internal Affairs. 72 Letter from Sheriff Tucker to the ACLU (May I, 20 17) (stating, inter alia, that the sample "standard citizen complaint fo rm" is " no longer used by the [MCSD]"). 73 See ACLU Public Records Request (Mar. 3, 20 17), Item 1 (requesting, inter alia, " [a]Ll records regarding complaints, formal or informal against any [MCSD] employees, including the Sheriff, w hether or not currently employed"); Letter from Shetiff Tucker (Mar. 14, 20 17) (stating, in response to Item 1, that the MCSD " does not have any pub! ic records sought in this item since it does not maintai11 a file for these complaints" and a lso stating that "any such records that are generated as the result of an internal affairs investigation are exempt as investigatory reports").
51

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 52 of 86
VII. The Board of Supervisors Has Been Deliberately Indifferent to the Constitutional Violations Caused by the Policing Program 169. The Board of Supervisors serves as " the chief policy making and administrative
body" of Madison County. By its own description , the Board of Supervisors is " the one body which supervises almost everything that goes on in county government."74
170. The Board of Supervisors is comprised of five elected Supervisors, one from each of the five districts in Madison County. "[T]ogether the members set policy" for Madison County and "are expected to look after the good of the catmty as a whole." 75
171. For at least a decade, the Madison County Board of Supervisors has known that the MCSD systematically targets the Black community for unreasonable searches and seizures:
a) In 2006, the Concemed Citizens of Canton presented the Board of Supervisors with a petition bearing 664 signatures demanding an end to "frequent roadblocks in the predominantly black neighborhoods," "the excessive force and brutality administered by police offi.cers," and "racial profiling."76
b) In July 2006, representatives of the Concerned Citizens of Canton attended a Board of Supervisors meeting to raise these concerns. SheriffTrowbridge was present at the meeting but refused to meet with the Concerned Citizens of Canton. Significantly, Sheriff Trowbridge stated that the MCSD would not end the use of roadblocks. 77
74 Board of Supervisors, Madison County, Mississippi, http://madison-co.com/elected-offices/board-ofsupervisors. 1s Id. 76 Sylvain Metz, Roadblocks questioned in Canton, THE CLARION-LEDGER (July 18, 2006), 2006 WLNR 25321982. 77 Jd.
52

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 53 of 86
c) In November 2007, Sheriff Trowbridge addressed charges of racial profiling during a Board of Supervisors meeting. 78 He claimed that the MCSD did not engage in racial profiling. 79
172. The Board of Supervisors is also presumed to have knowledge of the allegations of Mr. Gibson's complaint, and the commonly-known banns suffered by the Black residents of Madison County as a result of these practices.80
173. Although the Board of Supervisors has been aware of a pattern of constitutional violations suffered by the Black residents of Madison County, the Board of Supervisors has been deliberately indifferent to these violations. The Board of Supervisors has failed to investigate the MCSD 's racial ly discriminatory policing practices and/or its pattern of conducting unreasonable searches and seizures, and has also failed to require the MCSD to take any actions to: (a) establish polic.ies that prohibit racially discriminatory policing practices and/or umeasonable searches and seizures; (b) screen, train, and supervise MCSD deputies, employees, and agents to prevent MCSD personnel ±i·om employing unconstitutional racially discriminatory policing practices and/or conducting umeasonable searches and seizures; (c) monitor MCSD deputies, employees, and agents to ensure that their policing practices comply with constitutional requirements; and/or (d) discipline MCSD deputies, employees, and agents who employ racially discriminatory policing practices and/or conduct unreasonable searches and seizures.
174. This "policy of inaction" by the Madison County Board of Supervisors is the functional equivalent of a decision by Madison County itself to violate the Constitution. By
78 "Madison sheriff denies rac ial discrimination charges during supervi sors' meeting," AP Alert
(November 6, 2007). 79 Crisp, supra note 42. 80 See supra ~1 148 tlu-ough I51 .
53

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 54 of 86
failing to take any steps t o investigate or remedy the MCSD' s systematic targeting of Black residents fo r umeasonable searches and seizures, the Board of Supervisors has implicitly sanctioned and endorsed the Policing Program. Vlll. The Policing Program Has Caused Thousands of Constitutiomll Violations
175. The MCSD 's systematic targeting of Black community members tor unreasonable
searches and seizures has resulted in thousands ofvio lations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The Policing Program is " unquestionably . .. the moving force" behind these constitutional violations within the meaning of the Supreme Court' s decision in A;fonell, 436 U.S . 658.
176. Sheriff Tucker has adopted, enforced, and expanded the Policing Program. Madison County, by and through its Board of Supervisors, has been deliberately indifferent to the pattern of constitutional violations that the Policing Program has caused. There can be no question that the Policing Program is the official- but w1written- policy, practice, and/or custom of both Sheriff Tucker and Madison County.
177. Without the declaratory and i~junctive relief sought herein, thousands of Black individuals in Madison County wi ll continue to be subjected to unconstitutional racially discriminatory policing practices pursuant to the Policing Program.
ALLEGATIONS OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVES 178. Each of the named Plaintiffs has suffered egregious constitutional violations as a direct result of the MCSD' s Policing Program. Most of the named Plaintiffs have been targeted by the MCSD for unreasonable race-based searches and seizmes at multiple times and in multiple ways.
54

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 55 of 86
179. The events described below demonstrate that the Policing Program is pervasive, widespread, and has the force of law. These events also illustrate the extremely high likelihood that the named Plaintiffs will be subject to unreasonable race-based searches and seizures by the MCSD in the future.
180. Named Plaintiffs assert, however, that only those events occurring within the past tlu·ee years entitle them to legal and equ itable .relief.
Latoya Brown 181. Ms. Brown is a 28-year old Black woman wbo has spent her entire life in Canton, Mississippi. She lives with named Plaintiff Steven Smith and their three daughters in a predonunantly-Black affordable housing complex. Ms. Brown is a stay-at-home mother. 182. In the past three years, Ms. Brown has been stopped repeatedly at the MCSD' s pedestrian "checkpoints" and roadblocks. She was also once detained during a suspicionless pedestrian stop. a. Pedestrian "Checkpoints" 183. Ms. Brovvn has been detained at the MCSD's pedestrian "checkpoints'' while entering and exiting her own home on at least three occasions in the last three years. The "checkpoints" have typically been located at the only access po int to her housing complex. 184. Each time Ms. Brown has been stopped, she has been required to provide the MCSD deputy with her identification. b. Suspicionlcss Pedestrian Stop 185. In the summer of2014, an MCSD deputy detained Ms. Brown while she was walking on the sidewalk in or around the predominantly-Black affordable housing complex where she resides. Ms. Brown was on her way to work at the time.
55

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 56 of 86
186. The MCSD deputy had no reasonable suspicion, but demanded to see Ms. Brown' s identification and find out where she was going.
187. The deputy detained Ms. Brown for approximately ten minutes before allowing her to proceed.
c. Roadblocks 188. In the past three years, Ms. Brown has been stopped at the MCSD's roadblocks multiple times while she was a passenger in someone else's vehicle. 189. At each roadblock stop, Ms. Brown has been required to provide the MCSD deputy with her identification. 190. Ms. Brown is at risk that the MCSD 's deputies will again stop her without reasonable suspicion at a pedestrian "checkpoint," on the street, or at a roadblock.
Lawrence Blackmon 191. Mr. Blackmon is a 31-year-old Black man who has resided in Canton, Mississippi since 1998. Mr. Blackmon is cuiTently enrolled in a Masters of Law program at George Washington University Law School in Washington D.C., but his permanent place of residence is at his grandmother's home. Mr. Blackmon intends to return to Madison County on a full-time basis after completing his studies. 192. MCSD deputies held Mr. Blackmon at gunpoint while they conducted a search of his home slightly over one year ago. The deputies claimed to have a warrant, but refused to provide Mr. Blackmon with an opportunity to review it. Mr. Blackmon has also been stopped at roadblocks in Canton multiple times in the past three years. These incidents are described in further detail below.
56

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 57 of 86
a. Home Search; Use of Force 193. Slightly over one year ago, Mr. B lackmon was at his home in Canton when he heard a banging at the front door. He opened the door to fllld two MCSD deputies who claimed to have a warrant for the arrest of one ofMr. Blackmon's relatives. Mr. Blackmon's cousin was not in the house at the time. 194. Mr. Blackmon asked the deputies to show him the warrant. When the deputies refused to provide him with an opportunity to review t he wan·ant, Mr. Blackmon did not allow the deputies to enter. 195. The MCSD deputies then began kicking on the door and shouted that if Mr. Blackmon djd not let them in, they would break down the door. Concerned that the MCSD deputies would damage the house, Mr. Blackmon opened the door. The door is still dented from the deputies' efforts to kick it in. 196. The two MCSD deputies entered Mr. Blackmon' s home with their weapons drawn. One deputy immediately pointed his gun at Mr. Blackmon, forced Mr. Blackmon to the ground, and handcuffed his wrists behind his back. 197. The MCSD deputies then proceeded to search Mr. Blackmon·s entire residence, ostensibly for the purpose of finding Mr. Blackmon' s relative. The MCSD deputies searched inside dresser drawers and other closed compartments that could not possib ly conceal an adult man. 198. Finding nothi ng, the deputi.es attempted to uncuffMr. Blackmon. However, they could not release him because they did not have the correct key for the handcuffs. The deputies then had to call another deputy to locate the key. Mr. Blackmon remained handcuffed for an additional fifteen minutes until the deputies obtained the proper key to unlock the handcuffs.
57

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 58 of 86
199. Eventually, the deputies uncuffed Mr. Blackmon and left his home. 200. Mr. Blackmon is at risk that the MCSD's deputies will again enter and search his home unlawfully once he returns to Canton. b. Roadblocks 201. Owing the past tlu-ee years, Mr. Blackmon has been stopped at roadblocks multiple times near his home in Canton. 202. In Mr. Blackmon' s experience, MCSD deputies sometimes stop all vehicles pass.ing through a roadblock. At other times, MCSD deputies onJy stop cettain vehicles. 203. Mr. Blackmon travels frequently throughout Canton, which is divided by railroad tracks. On one-side of the tracks is the impoverished and majority-Black section of Canton; on the other side is the more affluent section of Canton where most of Canton' s white citizens live. Mr. Blackmon has never seen a roadblock on the "other side of the tracks" in Canton. 204. Mr. Blackmon is at risk that the MCSD's deputies will again stop him at a roadblock without reasonable suspicion when he visits or returns to live in Canton.
Herbert Anthony Green 205. Mr. Green is a 30-year-old Black man, and a veteran oftbe United States Army. He currently resides in Canton, where he has spent most of his life. Mr. Green currently works at a local Chinese restaurant. 206. Within the past three years, Mr. Green has been subjected to a suspicionless search by a " Jump Out" patrol. This incident is described below.
58

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 59 of 86
a. "Jump Out'' Patrol 207. In October 20 15, Mr. Green was walking with two Black male friends when an unmarked MCSD vehicle drove close to them. A plainclothes MCSD deputy rapidly exited the vehicle and stopped both men. 208. The MCSD deputy proceeded to search Mr. Green and his friends, even though there was no reasonable suspicion to do so. 209. The deputy released Mr. Green and his friends after finding no illegal drugs or other grounds for the arrest.
Khadafy and Quinnetta Manning
210. Mr. and Mrs. Manning live in Canton, Mississippi. Mr. Manning is 35 years old.
He suffers from a painful nerve condition that makes it difficult for him to walk without a cane. Mrs. Manning is 29 years old. Together they are raising three young sons.
211. Last June, six MCSD deputies stormed into the Manning family ' s home demanding that they execute false witness statements. One of the MCSD deputies severely beat Mr. Manning and threatened him with jail time for his refusal to write a statement. A few months ago, Mr. Manning was falsely arrested by an MCSD deputy in retaliation for Mr. Mamting's eff01ts to seek legal redress for the injuries he suffered during the June 2016 incident. These events are described in further detail below.
a. Home Invasion; Use of Force
212. On June 26, 2016, at approxjmately 7 am in the morning, Mrs. Manning heard a loud banging on her front door. Mrs. Manning asked who was at the door at least twice before she heard a male voice answer that it was "the police."
59

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 60 of 86
213. Mrs. Mann ing opened the door slightly and saw six white male MCSD deputies standing at her doorstep. She asked the deputies what questions they had for her. MCSD Deputy John Doe # 1 (Deputy #l) asked, with no basis or j ustification: "Oh, y' all smoking weed in there?" Mrs. Manning responded that she did not smoke marijuana or use other illegal drugs. Disregarding her response, Deputy # 1 pushed past Mrs. Manning and barged into the Mannings' home without any mention of a search warrant. The other deputies followed.
214. None ofthe deputies inquired about or searched for illegal drugs once they \..vere inside the Mannings' family home.
215. The Mam1ings' three sons- the youngest of whom was then only five years oldwere all at home that morning, as was the Marulings ' eighteen-year-old niece.
216. Upon entering the Manning fam ily' s home, Deputy #1 shouted: ''I know y' all seen what went on downstairs, so are you going to be witnesses or are you going to be suspects?"
217. Mrs. Manning surmised that Deputy #1 was refen'ing to a dispute between her neighbor and her neighbor's boyfriend (the "boyfriend") that had taken place earlier that morning. Mrs. Manning realized that the deputies were trying to find a basis for charging the boyfriend with a property crime-even though Mrs. Mamling had not witnessed any such crime.
218. Deputy #l demanded tbat Mrs. Mann ing write a witness statement confirming that she had seen the boyfriend reach his hand through the broken window of her neighbor's apartment. Mrs. Manning attempted to tell the deputy that she had only seen the boyfriend removing pieces of broken glass from her neighbor' s apartment window. Mrs. Mruming told Deputy #1 that she had not seen the boyfriend reach his hand through the broken window.
219. Deputy #1 told Mrs. Manning that he "knew" she had seen the boyfriend reaching
into her neighbor' s window, and told Mrs. Manning to "stop lying to us." The deputy repeatedly
60

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 61 of 86
told Mrs. Manning that she cou ld either write the witness statement he demanded, or she could be treated as a suspect herself
220. At around this time, Mr. Manning- who had j ust woken up-hobbled out of his bedroom wearing only his tmderwear. Mr. Mann ing told his wife that she did not have to provide the deputies with the false witness statement they requested. Mr. Manning told the deputies that he ''knew his rights. "
221. The deputies then flew into a rage. One of the MCSD deputies ("Deputy #2") grabbed Mrs. Manning by the ann , while Deputy #1 dragged Mr. Manning across the room and put him in handcuffs. Deputy # 1 started cursing at Mr. Mann ing, and told him that he had "smatt ass mouth." Deputy #1 then proceeded to choke Mr. Manning with both of his hands. Terrified, Mrs. Manning began recording the incident on her cellular phone.
222. When Deputy # I finally stopped choking Mr. Manning, he started to shout that he would jail the Mannings if they refused to write the witness statements he wanted.
223. The Mannings tried to tell Deputy # 1 that Mr. Manning is physically disabled. From that point forward, Deputy #1 referred to Mr. Mannjng as "Crip" or "Mr. Cripp1e."
224. Deputy #1 then demanded to see identification for Mr. Manning, who was still in handcuffs. (Mrs. Manning was also compelled to provide her identification to one of the deputies during the incident.) When Mrs. Manning went to her bedroom to get Mr. Manning's identification, she left her phone on the cotmter. One of the deputies (" Deputy #3 ") then stood in front ofthe cotmter to prevent Mrs. Manning from retrieving her phone.
225. Deputy#l informed Mrs. Mruuling that if she did not write the witness statement he requested, he would jail Mr. Manning and set his bond at $50,000- a sum that the Mannings
61

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 62 of 86
would never be able to pay. A petrified Mrs. Manning finally said that she would write whatever witness statement the deputies wanted.
226. Deputy #1 then told Mrs. Manning that he was going to take her husband to jail anyway, and started hauling Mr. Manning towards the front door. Mrs. Mamling pleaded with Deputy #1 to at least allow her to give Mr. Manning his cane, pants, and shoes, since her husband was sti ll wearing nothing but his underpants. Deputy #1 refused, and told Mrs. Manning that there was no need for clothes since Mr. Manning would get a jumpsuit at jail.
227. As Deputy #1 headed out of the doorway with Mr. Manning in tow, Mrs. Manning managed to grab her cellphone from the counter and begin recording the incident again. One of the deputies knocked the phone out of Mrs. Manning's hand, and a third deputy physically blocked Mrs. Manning from foll owing Deputy # l outside.
228. Several of the Mannings' neighbors heard the commotion and rushed outside to see what was happening. These neighbors shouted to Deputy #1 that Mr. Manning could not move as quickly as he was being dragged due to his disabi lity. The Mannings' neighbors also tried to tell Deputy #1 that Mr. Manning had no involvement with that morning's burglary. Deputy# 1 ignored the neighbors and shoved Mr. Manning into his vehicle.
229. Mr. Manning was humiliated that his neighbors saw him being forc ibly taken out of his family's home while wearing only his underwear.
230. One of the deputies who was still in the Manning family home asked Deputy # 1 what he should do with M rs. Manning. Deputy #1 said that M rs. Manning could either "write a statement or go to County." Knowing that she could not leave her children alone, with both of their parents in jail, Mrs. Manning scribbled out the witness statement the deputies demanded. She can hardly remember what she wrote.
62

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 63 of 86
231. Once Mr. Manning was inside the deputy's vehicle, Deputy # l hit Mr. Manning' s head repeatedly with his fists, and struck him multiple times in the chest with a hard, black object that Mr. Manning co uld not identify. Mr. Manning was in so much pain that he frnaJly agreed, whi le weeping, to write a witness statement incriminating the boyfriend. Still, Deputy # 1 continued beating Mr. Manni ng. Deputy #I told Mr. Manning that his wife would be better off with him dead.
232. Finally, after what seemed like an etemity to Mr. Manning, Deputy #1 uncuffed him. Mr. Manning then wrote a statement with his hands shak ing and tears rolling down his face. Only when the statement was complete did Deputy #1 release Mr. Manning. who then stumbled barefoot in his underwear back into his home as his neighbors watched.
233. Mr. Manning's face was swollen and bruised from the assaul t, and his wrists were cut and black and blue from the tight handcuffs. He went to the hosp ital to seek medical treatment the following day. Hospital records show that Mr. Manning suffered both a sprained wrist and chest contusions.
234. Mr. Manning continues to feel deep shame at hi s inability to protect his family, as well as hi s public humi liation i11 full view of his neighbors. He st i!J experiences intense feelings of sadness and depression about the incident.
235. Mrs. Manning was extremely shaken up by the incident. She is very scared of what might happen the next time she is stopped at one of the many roadblocks and "checkpoints" that the MCS D regularly sets up in and around the predominantly-Black affordable housing complex where she resides.
236. Both Mr. Manning and Mrs. Manning are at risk that the MCS D's deputies will again illegally enter their family home and detain them without reasonable suspicion.
63

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 64 of 86
b. Baseless Arrest; Retaliation 23 7. On February 14, 2017, a deputy threatened Mr. Manning while Mr. Manning was talking with a neighbor in the parking lot of his fami ly's apartment complex. The deputy to ld Mr. Mamting that he "knew" Mr. Mamting had been "causing trouble" by " having people come around here asking questions." 238. The deputy handcuffed Mr. Manning and restrained him in the backseat of the deputy ' s veh icle. The deputy then searched Mr. Manning' s vehicle, which was parked in the lot. Finding nothing objectionable in the vehicle, the deputy charged Mr. Manning with driving while his license was suspended.
Marvin McField 239. Mr. McField is a 37-year-old Black man who was born, raised, and currently resides in Flora. Mr. McField has a pacemaker because he suffers from a serious heart condition. Mr. McField is a carpenter. He is married with children. 240. Several years ago, during a routine roadblock stop, Mr. McField was searched, beaten until he could not breathe, and incarcerated for nineteen days without ever being charged with a crime. 241 . Ever since that incident, Mr. McField has been deeply afraid of encounters with the MCSD's deputies. He does everything he can to avoid passing through roadblocks. 242. Despite these efforts, Mr. McField has been stopped at roadblocks several times within the past three years. He was also pulled over in a suspicionless traffic stop after attempting to circumvent a roadblock. These incidents are described in more detail below. 243. Mr. McFieJd wants the MCSD to change its policing practices because he does not ever want hi s young chi ldren to suffer the way that he has.
64

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 65 of 86
a. Roadblocks; Use of Force; Incarceration without Charge or Due Process 244. Within the past three or four years, Mr. McFieJd was detained at a roadblock while driving his brand new Chevy Cobalt. 245. The MCSD deputies manning the roadblock asked Mr. McFie]d to pull over. There were approximately six or seven male deputies, all but one of whom was white. 246. One of the deputies said to Mr. McField "You a baller, ain't you?" On information and belief, the deputy was refetTing to t he fact that Mr. McField was driving a new
car.
247. The MCSD deputies told Mr. Mcfield to exit the vehicle. When Mr. McField got out of his car, the deputies handcuffed his hands behind his back and searched his person, including his pockets. The deputies then lifted Mr. McField up and threw him onto the hood of the Chevy Cobalt. Because it was a wam1 sunm1er day, the hood was extremely hot. Mr. Mcfield protested that there was no need for the deputies to treat him this way.
248. A few minutes later, the deputies p ulled Mr. McField off the hood of the C hevy Cobalt, shoved Mr. McField into one of the deputies' vellicles, and locked the doors. The deputies left Mr. Mcfield trapped in the stifling heat of the confined car with the windows rolled up for 15 to 20 minutes.
249. The deputies then got into the vehicle and drove off, with Mr. Mcfield still in U1e backseat. After a few minutes of driving, the dep uties pulled over and yanked Mr. McField out of the backseat by his legs. They then began beating him in the chest. The beating continued until Mr. McField told the deputies that he could not breathe.
65

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 66 of 86
250. The deputies then fo rced Mr. McField back into their vehjcle, and took him to the
Madison County Detention Center, where the deputies beat him again- this time hitting him in the head instead of in his chest.
25 1. Mr. McField was held in the Madison County Detention Center for more than two weeks w1thout being charged "vith any crime. During this time, he was not pem1itted to make any phone calls or let anyone know of his w hereabouts. 1\fter nineteen days, Mr. Mcfield was brought before a j udge without any legal counsel. Mr. McField was inforn1ed that he had served his time, and was subsequently released.
252. Mr. McField has si nce lived in fear that he will again be stopped at one of the MCSD's roadblocks. He does everything in his power to avoid having to pass through these roadblocks. However, steering clear of roadblocks is no easy task because the MCSD establishes roadblocks throughout the minority neighborhoods of Flora. where Mr. McField resides, multiple times a week.
253. In the course of the past three years. Mr. McField has been stopped at roadblocks on several occasions. Each time, Mr. McField has been gripped with fear that he may be beaten or incarcerated by the MCSD's deputies.
254. Mr. McField is at risk that the MCSD's deputies will again stop him at a roadblock without reasonable suspicion.
b. Suspicionless Traffic Stop 255. Approximately two years ago, Mr. McField was pulled over by MCSD deputies while he was driving home in his cousin 's car with t hree of his relatives, all of whom were also Black men. It was about 1 am in the morning. Mr. McField was not speeding, and there was no reasonable suspicion or probable cause for the MCSD deputies to stop Mr. McField
66

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 67 of 86
256. One of the MCSD deputies asked Mr. Mcfield for his driver's license. Mr. Mcfield responded that he did not have his license with him, but provided the deputy with rus Social Security number. The deputy then instructed Mr. McField and his passengers to exit the vehicle.
257. One of the deputies handcuffed Mr. McField and searched his pockets. The deputy then put Mr. McFie]d in the backseat of h is patrol car.
258. Mr. McField ' s passengers later told him that while he was in t he patrol car, the
deputies asked the passengers for their identification. The deputies also inquired whether there were any illegal drugs in the vehicle. The passengers said no. The deputies then searched Mr. Mcfield' s cousin' s velllcle and did not find any illegal drugs.
259. After running everyone' s identifications against police databases, the MCSD
deputies released Mr. Mcfield and his passengers. 260. Mr. McField is at risk that the MCSD ' s deputies will again pull him over while he
is driving without reasonable suspicion. Nick Singleton
261. N ick Singleton is a 35-year-old Black man who has lived in Canton, Mississippi since 2004. Until recently, Mr. Singleton worked in information technology at a data center. He is the father of two young boys.
262. In the past three years, Mr. Singleton has repeatedly been stopped at the MCSD 's roadblocks, as described below.
263. Several years ago, Mr. Singleton was subjected to a wan antless an.d consentless
home search by then-Deputy Tucker and other MCSD deputies just minutes after Deputy T ucker personally delivered a package to Mr. Singleton's home. The package was addressed to a relative
67

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 68 of 86
who did not reside with Mr. Singleton. As soon as Mr. Singleton's brother-in-law picked up the package and brought it inside, a team ofMCSD deputies- including then-Deputy Tuckerstormed into Mr. Singleton's home. They forced Mr. Singleton. his brother-in-law, and his sister to lay on the floor while they searched the family home. Mr. ingleton's son. who was then only three years old, was present in the home at the time. When Mr. Singleton's sister asked thenDeputy Tucker whether they had a search warrant, Tucker pointed to the box and said: " I don' t need a search warrant. That box is my search warrant. "
a. Roadblocks 264. Mr. Singleton lives on a quiet residential street in a majority-Black neighborhood in Canton. MCSD deputies regulaJly establ ish roadblocks on the intersection right outside of his home, particularly on holidays. 265. ln the last year alone, Mr. Singleton has been stopped at the MCSD"s roadblocks a minimum of20 times. He has been detained at dozens of roadblocks without reasonable suspicion in the past three years. 266. On numerous occasions he has seen MCS D deputies set up a roadblock at one location and then move it down the street to a different corner. Mr. Singleton has often been requi red to show his license and insurance to t he same MCSD deputy twice in the same day while driving through t hese "roving" roadblocks. 267. Mr. Singleton often spends time in maj ority-whi te areas of Madison County. He has never seen a roadblock in these predominantly white neighborhoods. 268. Mr. Si ngleton is at risk that the MCSD's deputies wi ll again stop him at a roadblock without reasonable suspicion.
68

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 69 of 86
Steven Smith 269. Mr. Smith is a 27-year-old Black man who has spent his entire life in Canton, Mississippi. He lives with named Plaintiff Ms. Brown and their three young daughters in a predominantly-Black affordable housing complex. Mr. Smith currently works at a Chinese restaurant as a wok cook. 270. During the past three years, Mr. Smith has been anested and incarcerated following a suspicionless stop at a pedestrian ''checkpoint" outside of his own apartment co1nplex. He has also been subject to a warrantless and suspicionless search of his home. These incidents are described below. a. Pedestrian "Checkpoint" 271 . In January 2017, Mr. Smith was stopped at a pedestrian "checkpo int" as he was walking into the predominantly-Black affordable housing complex where he resides. 272. The MCSD deputies demanded to see Mr. Smith's identification, and searched his person. On information and belief, the deputies had no reasonable suspic ion or probable cause to search him. 273. Mr. S.llUth was arrested after a check of his identification revealed that he had overd ue fines and court fees. Because he could not afford to pay the County, Mr. Smith was subsequently incarcerated for 29 days at the Madison County Detention Center. 274. During this time, Mr. Smith could not go to work. The lost income was an economic hardship fo r his family, particularly because his partner, named Plaintiff Ms. Brown, is a stay-at-home mother who cares for their young daughters. 275. Mr. Smith is at ri sk that the MCSD's deputies will again stop him at a pedestrian "checkpoint" without reasonable suspicion.
69

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 70 of 86
b. Home Search 276. On the evening of October 31, 2015, two MCSD deputies came to Mr. Smith's door after midnight and demanded to be let inside. 277. The deputies claimed they were searching for a missing person, but they did not provide Mr. Smith with a warrant. 278. Mr. Smith told the deputies that they did not have his permission to enter h is home. Over Mr. Smith' s obj ections, the deputies pushed right past Mr. Smith and proceeded to search his apartment. 279. The deputies conducted a thorough search ofMr. Smith' s home. including examining inside bureau drawers and other small closed compartments that could not reasonably contain a person. 280. One of the deputies even woke up Mr. Smith's daughter, who was only three years old at the time, to ask her if she knew anything about the missing person.
281 . Mr. Smith is at risk that the MCSD's deputies will again enter and seru·ch his
home unlawfully. Bessie Thomas
282. Mrs. Thomas is a 59-year-old Black woman who has lived in Canton, Mississippi for the last five decades. Mrs. Thomas serves as a minister at two local churches, and she is involved in taking care of her yotmg grandchildren. For three years, M rs. Thomas operated a corner store in Canton.
283. Within the past three years, Mrs. Thomas has been subjected to a warrantless and consentless home in vasion. She has also been stopped at the MCSD 's roadblocks multiple times. These incidents are described below.
70

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 71 of 86
284. In M rs. Thomas's experience, MCSD deputies inflict violence rath~r than protect Black conununity members from violence. On several occasions, Mrs. Thomas called the MCSD for help after break-ins at her comer store in whi.ch thieves took almost all of her inventory. Following a break-in that took place in October 2016, one MCSD deputy told Mrs. Thomas: "If they break in, just shoot them." Mrs. Thomas ultimately had no choice but to shut down the store later that year.
a. Home lnvasion 285. l n the stunmer of2014, Mrs. Thomas was sitting outside her home, under the carport, when t'vVO MCSD deputies pulled in , ran right past her and began kicking in the door to the carport, which was unlocked. Mrs. Thomas attempted to ask the deputies why they were there, but they continued to kick in the door until the door frame split apart and the door opened. T he MCSD deputies then barged into Mrs. Thomas's home and arrested her son. The deputies never showed Mrs. Thomas a warrant. 286. The ent ire length of the frame of Mrs. Thomas's carport door still remains cracked as a result of the MCSD's forcible entry, despite attempts to repair it. b. Roadblocks 287. Mrs. Thmnas has been detained at roadblocks in Canton a number of t imes during the last three years. 288. In Mrs. Thomas's experience, " the roadblocks end where the white people start" at the east end of Canton. Mrs. Thomas bas frequently encountered roadblocks on King Ranch Road , a predominantly-Black ru·ea.
71

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 72 of 86
289. Mrs. Thomas feels demeaned and degraded every time she has to pass through a roadblock because she believes that this is someth ing only Black residents of Madison County are forced to do.
290. Mrs. Thomas is at risk that the MCSD's deputies wi ll again stop her at a roadblock without reasonable suspicion.
Betty Jean WiiJiams Tucker 29 1. Mrs. Tucker is a 62-year-old Black womru1 who was born, raised, and currently resides in Canton, M ississippi. For over a decade, Mrs. Tucker worked as a welder in a Canton manufacturing warehouse. She has five children, twelve grandchildren, and two great grandchildren. Mrs. Tucker is among the longest-li ved residents in her Canton neighborhood. 292. During the past three years, Mrs. Tucker has been stopped several ti mes at the MCSD's roadblocks. These incidents are described below. 293. About three or four years ago, Mrs. Tucker was hosting a celebratory barbeque when two plainclothes deputies pulled up in an unmarked vehicle. Without a warrant or Mrs. Tucker's consent, the deputies walked right into Mrs. Tucker's yard ru1d began searching every person at the party, right down to the contents of their pockets. Finding nothing, the MCS D deputies also got down on their hands and knees to search Mrs. Tucker's patio. They eventually left without any explanation. 294. About five years ago, Mrs. Tucker was in her front yard when she saw a "Jump Out" patrol target her teenage grandson, who lived across the street. Her grandson bad been fixing his brother's bicycle in his own front yard. It was a hot day, and her grru1dson was shirtless. All of a sudden, an unmarked truck went speeding towards Mrs. Tucker' s grandson, and out jumped two white p lainclothes deputies. The deputies tackled her grandson to the ground
72

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 73 of 86
and began aggressively searching tlu ough his pockets. Petrified, Mrs. Tucker shouted to the deputies that he was her grandson and asked what he had clone wrong. The deputies abruptly got up after finding nothing in her grandson's pockets. As they went back to their truck, one of the deputies said to Mrs. Tucker: "Tell your grandson to wear a shirt next time."
a. Roadblocks 295. Mrs. T ucker has a va lid license, registration, and insurance. Nevertheless, because of her prior experiences with the MCSD, she devotes a great deal oftime and etTort to findi ng out the locations of the MCSD's roadblocks through phone calling trees, Facebook pages, smrui phone apps, and texting lists. Mrs. Tucker often rean anges her life to avoid the MCSD's roadblocks, typically by cancelling her plans and not leav ing the house to see family or friends. 296. Despite these extensive efforts, Mrs. Tucker was sti ll subj ected to two roadblock stops over the past two years. During both stops, Mrs. Tucker was required to provide her license and her passengers were required to provide their identifications before the deputies allowed Mrs. Tucker and her passengers to proceed. Each stop delayed her by approximatel y ten mjnutes. 297. In Mrs. Tucker's decades of living and traveling in Madison County, she has rarely-if ever-seen a roadblock io a predomi_nantly-white neighborhood. She has also found that roadblocks typically take place on low-traffic streets where accidents rarely occur. She has also observed a pattern of increased roadblock activity during major events in the Black community, such as Martin Luther King Jr. weekend. Mrs. Tucker fee ls that the MCSD ' s roadblocks have become more fre quent si_nce Randy Tucker became Sheriff. 298. Mrs. Tucker is at risk that the MCSD 's deputies will again stop her at a roadblock without reasonable suspicion.
73

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 74 of 86
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 299. Plaintiffs seek to bring this action on their own behalfand on behalf of a class of those similarly situated pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 300. The proposed Class is defined as: "People who (1) are, or who appear to be, Black and those in their company, and (2) were, are, or will be in Madison County, and (3) were, are, or will be, subject to the MCSD's policy, custom, and/or practice of systematically executing unreasonable searches and seizures of persons, homes, cars, and property on the basis ofrace." 301. The Class meets all ofthe requirements ofRule 23(a) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 302. The members ofthe Class are so numerous as to render joinder impracticable. Although the exact size of the class is unknown, as of the 2010 census, over 36,000 Black persons reside in Madison County.81The unlawful law enforcement activities described herein, and the resuJting violations of Black individuals' constitutional rights, have occurred, and will continue to occur, on a routine basis and for the foreseeable future unless such conduct is enjoined by this Court. 303. In addition, joinder is impracticable because, upon information and belief, many members of the Class are not aware of the fact that their constitutional rights have been violated and that they have the right to seek redress in court. Many members of the Class are without the means to retain an attorney to represent them in a civil rights Lawsuit. Moreover, many Class members who have been victimized by Defendants' unconstitutional practices do not bring individual claims for fear of retaliation and reprisals by Defendants and their agents. There is no
81 Quickfacts: Madison County, Mississippi, U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST0452l6/28089,28 (last visited May 5, 20 17).
74

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 75 of 86
appropriate avenue for protection of the Class members' constitutional rights other than a class action.
304. The Class members share a number of questions oflaw and fact in common, including, but not limited to: whether the MCSD has a policy, practice, ancl/or custom of targeting members of the Class for unreasonable searches and seizures on the basis of race in violation of both the Fourth Amendment and the Equal P rotection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
305. The named Plaintiffs" claims are typical of those of the Class. Like the other members of the Class, the named Plaintiffs have been and likely will again be victims of Defendants' policy, practice, and/or custom of conducting unreasonable searches and seizures on the basis ofrace in violation of the Fourth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fomteenth Amendment.
306. The legal theories under which the named Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief are the same or similar to those on which all members of the Class will rely, and the harms suffered by the named Plaintiffs are typical of the harms suffered by the Class members.
307. The named Plaintiffs have a strong personal interest in the outcome of this action, have no confl icts of interest with members ofthe Plaintiff Class, and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. The named Plaintiffs are all current or former Black residents of Madison County or nearby areas who continue to reside in, have their pem1anent place of residence in, travel to and in, and/or intend io the near future to reside in, Madison County. As long as the MCSD continues to inlplement the policy, practice, and/or custom described herein, the named Plaintiffs will remain at substantial risk of suffering constitutional violations as a
75

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 76 of 86
result of the conduct ofMCSD personnel. The named P laintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages only on an individual basis.
308. The named Plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Libetties Un ion of Mississippi, the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, and by the law fum Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP. Counsel for the Plaintiffs have the resources, expertise, and experience to prosecute this action. Counsel for the Plaintiffs know of no conflicts among members of the Class or between the attorneys and members of the Class.
309. The Plaintiff Class should be certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the f ederal Rules of Civil Procedure because Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby making Class-wide declaratory and injunctive relief appropriate.
CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Claims ofNamed Plaintiffs and Class Members Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against All Defendants for Violations of the Fourth Amendment) 310. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 309 above as if fully set forth herein. 311. Defendants Sheriff Tucker and the COlmty have implemented, enforced, encouraged, and sanctioned a policy, practice, and/or custom of conducting unreasonable searches and se izures of County residents in the absence of reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause. These constitutional abuses are at times accompanied by the use of excessive force. 312. The MCSD 's constitutional abuses and violations were and are directly and proximately caused by policies, practices, and/or customs devised, implemented, enforced, encouraged, and sanctioned by the County and Sheriff Tucker, including: (a) the fai lme to adequately and properly screen, train, and supervise MCSD personnel; (b) the fa ilure to
76

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 77 of 86
adequately and properly monitor and discipline MCSD personnel; and (c) the overt and tacit encouragement and sanctioning of, and the failure to rectify, the MCSD's prac6ce of conducting unconstitutional searches and seizures.
313 . Each of the Defendants has acted with deliberate indifference to the Fourth Amendment rights of the named Plaintiffs and other members of the Class. As a di rect and proximate result of the acts and omissions of each of the Defendants, the Fourth Amendment rights of the named Plaintiffs and other Class members have been violated. By acting under color of state law to deprive the named Plaintiffs and other Class members of their rights under the Fourth Amendment, Defendants have violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which prohibits the deprivation under color of state law of rights secured under the United States Constitution.
314. The MCSD targets individuals for suspkionless and otherwise unjustified detentions, frisks, searches, and arrests in areas where Plaintiffs reside andJor visit. Thus, a real and immediate threat exists that the Fourth Amendment rights of the named Plaintiffs and other Class members will be violated by MCSD personnel in the immediate future. Moreover, because Defendants' policies, practices, and/or customs subject the named Plaintiffs and other Class members to suspicionless and otherwise unj ustified detentions, frisks, searches, and arrests without any reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminality, and on the basis of their race, the named Plaintiffs and other Class members cannot alter their behavior to avoid future violations of their constitutional and civil rights by the MCSD.
315. The named Plaintiffs and other members ofthe Class have no adequate remedy at law and will suffer serious and irreparable harm to their constitutional rights unless Defendants are enjoined from continuing the MCSD' s policy, practice, and/or custom of conducting
77

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 78 of 86
unreasonable searches and seizures of persons, homes, cars, and property on the basis ofrace, with the concomitant use of excessive force.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Claims of Named Plaintiffs and Class Members Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Aga inst All Defendants for Violations of the Equal Protection Clause) 316. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 3 15 above as if fully set forth herein. 3 17. Defendants Sheriff Tucker and the County have implemented, enforced, encouraged, and sanctioned a policy, practice, and/or custom of targeting the named Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class for unreasonable searches and seizures on the basis of their race, which violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The MCSD's constitutional abuses and violations were and are directly and proximately caused by policies, practices, and/or customs devised, implemented, enforced, encouraged, and sanctioned by the County and Sheriff Tucker, including: (a) the failure to adequate ly and properly screen, train, and supervise MCSD persoru1el; (b) the failure to adequatel y and properly monitor and discipline MCSD personnel; and (c) the overt and tacit encouragement and sanctioning of, and the failure to rectify, the MCSD's use ofracial profiling to target Black individuals for unconstitutional searches and seizures through its Policing Program. 318. Each ofthe Defendants has acted with del iberate indifference to the Fourteenth Amendment rights of the named Plaintiffs and other members of the Class. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of each of the Defendants, the Fourteenth Amendment rights of the named Plaintiffs and other Class members have been violated. By acting under color of state law to deprive the named Plaintiffs and other Class members of their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, Defendants have violated 42 U.S .C. § 1983.
78

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 79 of 86
319. The MCSD targets Black persons in areas where the named Plaintiffs and other Class members reside and/or visit. As a result, a real and immediate threat exists that the Fourteenth Amendment rights of the named Plaintiffs and other Class members will be violated by MCSD pers01mel in the immediate future. Moreover, because Defendants' policies, practices, and/or customs subject the named Plaintiffs and other Class members to unreasonable detentions, frisks, searches, and arrests without any reasonable, articulable sus picion of criminality, and on the basis of their race, the named Plaintiffs and other Class members cannot alter thei r behavior to avoid future violations of their constitutional and civil rights by the MCSD.
320. The named Plaintiffs and other members of the Class have no adequate remedy at law and will suffer serious and irreparable harm to their constitutional rights unless Defendants are enjoined from continuing the MCSD 's policy, practice, and/or custom of conducting unreasonable searches and seizures of persons, homes, cars, and property on the basis of race, with the concomitant use of excessive force.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Claims of Named Plaintiffs and Class Members Pursuant to Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(d), et seq., Against the County) 321. P laintiffs repeat and re-allege paragraphs l through 320 above as if fully set forth herein. 322. The law enforcement activities described in this Complaint have been funded, in part, with federal funds. 323. Discrimination based on race in law enforcement activities and other conduct described herein is prohibited under 42 U.S.C. § 2000(d), et seq. The acts and conduct of the Defendants complained ofherein were motivated by racial animus, and were intended to
79

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 80 of 86
discriminate on the basis of race and/or had a disparate impact on minorities, namely Black residents of and visitors to the County.
324. As a direct and proximate cause of the above mentioned acts, the named Plaintiffs and members of the Class have suffered injuries and damages and have been deprived oftheir rights tmder the Civil Rights Act. Without appropriate injtmctive relief, these violations will continue to occur.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Individual Claims of Khadafy Manning Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Against John Does #1 through #6) 325. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege paragraphs l through 324 above as if fully set fmih herein. 326. The conduct of John Does # l through #6 on June 16, 20 16 in unlawfully and forcibly entering Mr. Manning's home; unlawfully seizing, handcuf±ing, choking, dragging, and beating Mr. Manning; and unlawfully compelling Mr. Manning to write a false witness statement under threat of criminal punishment, was conduct performed entirely under color of law, absent reasonable suspicion of criminality or other constitutionally-required grounds, and on the basis of Mr. Manning's race. The warrantless and consentless entry into the home of; the seizure, which amounted to an arrest of; and the compelled execution of a false witness statement by, PlaintiffK.hadafy Manning by John Does #1 through #6 were carried out using unjustified and unconstitutionally excessive force. 327. As a direct and proximate result of such acts, John Does# 1 through #6 deprived Mr. Manning of his Fourth and Fomieenth Amendment rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
80

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 81 of 86
328. As a direct and proximate result of those constitutional abuses, Mr. Manning has suffered, and will continue to suffer, physical, mental, and emotional pain and suffering, mental angu ish, embarrassment, and humiliation.
329. The acts of John Does #1 -#6 were intentional, wanton, malicious, reckless, and oppressive, thus entitling PlaintiffKhada±y Manning to an award of punitive damages.
FJFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Individual Claims of Quinnetta Manning Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against John Does #1 through #6)
330. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege paragraphs I through 329 above as if fully set fort h herein.
33 1. The conduct of John Does #1 through #6 on June 16, 2016 in unlawfully and forcibly entering Mrs. Manning's home, unlawfully detaining Mrs. Manning, and unlawfully compelling Mrs. Manning to write a false witness statement under threat of criminal punishment, was conduct performed entirely under color of law, absent reasonable suspicion of criminality or other constitutionally-requ.ired grounds, and on the basis of Mrs. Manning's race. The seizure, which amounted to an arrest, of Plaintiff Quinnetta Manning by John Does #1 through #6 was canied out using excessive and disproportionate force.
332. As a direct and proximate result of such acts, John Does #1 through #6 deprived Mrs. Manning of her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
333. As a direct and proximate result of those constitutional abuses, Mrs. Manning has suffered, and will continue to suffer, physical, mental, and emotional pain and suffering, mental anguish, and crippling fear of law enforcement.
81

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 82 of 86
334. The acts of John Does #1 through #6 were intentional, wanton, malicious, reckless, and oppressive, thus entitling Plai ntiff Quinnetta Manning to an award of punitive damages.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Individual Claims of Khadafy Manning and Quinnetta Manning
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against the County) 335. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 334 as if fully set forth herein. 336. Defendant Madison County has directly and proximately caused the MCSD's pol icy, practice, and/or custom of conducting unreasonable searches and seizures on the basis of race, including by devising, implementing, enforcing, adopting, sanctioning, and ratifying a policy , practice, and/or custom of (a) failing to adequately and properly screen, train, and supervise MCSD personnel; (b) failing to adequately and properly monitor and discipline MCSD personnel; and (c) overtly and tacitly encouraging and sanctioning, and failing to rectify the MCSD's constitutional abuses. 337. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid acts and omissions. Defendant Madison County has deprived Plaintiffs Khadafy Manning and Quitmetta Manning of their Fourth and FoUlteenth Amendment rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the named Plaintiffs and other members of the Class they seek to represent pray that the Comt wi ll: A. Issue an order certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and
(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the manner described above herein, with the named Plaintiffs as class representatives; B. lssue a class-wide judgment declaring that the MCSD's policy, practice, and/or custom of unreasonably searching and seizing persons, homes, cars, and property in the absence of reasonable suspicion or probable cause and on the basis of race, and of using unconstitutionally excessive force in connection with such searches
82

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 83 of 86

and seizures, including the specific practices alleged herein, violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Title VI, and that its implementation, enforcement, and sanctioning by MCSD personnel is a direct and proximate result of the fo ll owing po licies, practices, and/or customs of the County and SheritT Tucker:

L.

Fail i11g to adequately screen, train, and supervise officers;

H.

Failing to adequately monitor the MCSD and its personnel and

discipline those persolll1el who violate the constitutional rights of

the residents ofthe communiti.es they patrol; and

nt.

Encouraging, sanctiorung, and fa iling to rectify the MCSD' s

policy, practice, and/or custom of unreasonably searching and

seizing persons, homes, cars, and property in the absence of

reasonable suspicion or probable cause and on the basis of race,

and of using unconstitutionally excessive force in connection with

such searches and seizures.

C. Issue an order for the following injunctive rel ief:

1.

Enjo ining the MCSD from continuing its policy, practice, and/or

custom of unreasonably searching fL.'1d se izing persons, homes,

cars, and property in the absence of reasonable suspicion or

probable cause and on the basis ofrace, and of using

unconstitutionally excessive force in connection with such

searches and seizures;

11.

Requiring the County to establish an independent civilian

complaint review board which will be tasked with reviewing and

investigating complaints by the public against the MCSD for abuse

of authority, discrimination, and improper use of force, stops and

fiisks, and searches and seizures; and requiring the County to

empower the civilian complaint review board to investigate MCSD

policies and practices to identify systemic problems, subpoena

MCSD documents and testimony for investigations, and impose

binding disciplinary decisions upon findings that an officer of

MCSD has violated civil rights;

111.

Requiring the CoLmty and Sheriff Tucker to institute and

implement improved policies and programs with respect to

training, discipline, and promotion designed to eliminate the

MCSD's policy, practice, and/or custom of umeasonably searching

and seizing persons, homes, cars, and property in the absence of

reasonable suspicion or probable cause and on the basis of race,

and of using unconstitutional ly excessive force in connection with

such searches and seizures;

83

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 84 of 86

1v.

Requiring the County and Sheriff Tucker to deploy MCSD

personnel with appropriate and adequate supervision ;

v.

Requiring the County and Sheriff Tucker to implement appropriate

measures to ensure that MCSD deputies document:

1. all roadblocks and checkpoints, including the location of each roadblock and checkpoint and the number, race, and gender of each individual(s) stopped;

2. aiJ stops, fri sks, searches (including home entries), including the basis for and the location of each stop, frisk, and search, and the number, race, and gender of each individual stopped, frisked, and/or searched; and

3. all citations and arrests, including the date, location, and circumstances under which the citation was issued and/or the anest made, the basis and/or charge for the arrest/citation, and the race and gender of each individual cited or arrested,

in sufficient detail as to perm it supervisory review for compliance with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and Title VI of the Civil Ri.ghts Act;

v1.

Requiring the County and Sheriff Tucker to implement appropriate

measures to ensure that documentation of all vehicular stops and

pedestrian stops and/or frisks is retained in a single, up-to-date

computerized database;

vu.

Requiring the County and SherifiTucker to make publicly

available, on a semiannual basis, data on all roadblocks,

checkpoints, stops, frisks, and searches (including home entries),

conducted by the MCSD, including the locations of each

roadblock, checkpoint, stop, frisk and/or search and the race,

ethnicity, and gender of each individual stopped and/or searched,

as well as the purpose of the roadblocks/checkpoints and the

reasons for stops, frisks, and searches;

vm.

Requiring the County and Sheriff Tucker to monitor and audit

MCSD policies, practices, and customs to ensure that all

roadblocks, checkpoints, stops, frisks, and searches (including

borne entries), comport with constitutional and statutoty

requirements, including by, among other things, periodicall y

reviewing forms documenting roadblocks, checkpoints, stops,

frisks, and searches (including home entries), and analyzing data

on roadblocks, checkpoints, stops, frisks, and searches (including

home entries); and

84

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 85 of 86

IX.

Requiring the Cow1ty and Sheriff Tucker to acknowledge the role

of policing in past and present inj ustice and discrimination and

how it is a hurdle to the promotion of community trust; and

x.

Requiring the County and Sheriff Tucker to embrace a guardian

mindset to build public trust and legitimacy by adopting procedural

justice as the guiding principle for internal and external policies

and practices to guide their interactions with the citizens they

serve.

D. Award named Plaintiffs Khadafy Manning and Quinnetta Manning compensatory damages against John Does #1 through #6 and against the County in amounts that are fair, just, and reasonable. to be determined at trial;

E. Award named Plaintiffs Khadafy Manning and Quinnetta Mantling punitive damages against John Does #1 through #6 to the extent that their liability is based on reprehensible actions and/or inaction undertaken in their individual capacities, in amounts that are fair, just, and reasonably designed to punish and deter said reprehensible conduct, to be determined at trial;

F. Award all Plaintiffs, including the members of the Class, reasonable attorneys' fee s pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988;

G. Award all Plaintiffs, including the members of the Class, costs of suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 1988; and

H. Award such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate and equitable, including injunctive and declaratory relief as may be required in the interests ofjustice.

85

Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 86 of 86

Dated: May 8, 2017

By:& ~=-· -----Joshua Tom

SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLEIT LLP Jonathan K. Youngwood (pro hac vice forthcoming) Janet A. Gochman (pro hac vice forthcoming) Tsaac Rethy (pro hac vice forthcoming) Nihara K. Choudhri (pro hac vice forthcoming) Yukiu Chan (pro hac vice fo rthcoming) 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 (212) 455-2000 jyoungwood@stblaw.com j gochman@stbJaw.com ire th y @ stblaw.com nchoudbri@stblaw.com monica.chan@stblaw.com

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF M1SSISSIPPI FOUNDATION Paloma Wu (pro hac vice forthcoming) Joshua Torn (Miss. Bar No. I05392) 233 East Capitol Street Jackson, MS 39201 (601) 354-3408 PWu@aclu-ms.org JTom@aclu-ms.org
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION Ezekiel Edwards (pro hac vice forthcoming) Jeffery Robinson (pro hac vice fo rthcoming) 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 (2 12) 549-2610 eedwards@aclu.org jrobinson@aclu.org

Attorneys for Plaint~ffs

86

 
 Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 340 Filed 01/04/19 Page 1 of 17

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION

LATOYA BROWN, ET AL.

PLAINTIFFS

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-cv-347-WHB-LRA

MADISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

OPINION AND ORDER This cause is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. Having considered the pleadings as well as supporting and opposing authorities, the Court finds the Motion should presently be denied because membership in all of the proposed classes cannot be ascertained, and there is doubt as to whether all of the class members have been harmed in essentially the same way.1 The Court, however, will not now dismiss the class action claim but, instead, will grant Plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their Complaint to cure the defects discussed by the Court herein. As Plaintiffs will be granted an opportunity to amend their Complaint, the Motions of Defendants for Summary Judgment on the claims alleged in the current complaint will be dismissed,

1 Because the Court finds the Motion for Class Certification should be dismissed because of pleading issues, and it is not required to consider the merits of class certification, all motions filed in conjunction with the Motion for Class Certification, which include motions seeking to strike evidence/pleadings in support and/or opposition to that Motion, will be denied as moot.

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 340 Filed 01/04/19 Page 2 of 17
without prejudice.
I. Factual Background and Procedural History Plaintiffs in this civil action are all Black residents of Madison County, Mississippi, who allege that they have been subjected to one or more racially-discriminatory policing policy. According to Plaintiffs, for the past twenty years the Madison County Sheriff’s Department (“MCSD”) has implemented a “coordinated top-down program” under which Blacks are methodically targeted for suspicionless searches and seizures. Plaintiffs further allege: Pursuant to the Policing Program, the MCSD employs a series of integrated tactics to systematically conduct unreasonable searches and seizures of persons, homes, cars, and property on the basis of race. During the course of these illegal searches and seizures, MCSD deputies routinely detain members of the Black community without probable cause, and often issue citations and make arrests either without legal justification or to recover outstanding fines and fees, typically for minor infractions. Compl., ¶ 52. The tactics allegedly used by the MCSD include the concentrating of vehicular roadblocks in and around predominately Black neighborhoods, apartment complexes, and businesses, which has resulted in greater number of Blacks being stopped and arrested. Id. at ¶¶ 57-76. Plaintiffs maintain that the primary purpose of the roadblock system used by the MCSD is to “target Black motorists, their passengers, and their vehicles for unreasonable searches and seizures.” Id. at ¶ 76. The other alleged purposes for the roadblock policy include the unconstitutional general
2

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 340 Filed 01/04/19 Page 3 of 17
interest in crime control, and the desire to enrich the coffers of the county. Id. at ¶¶ 77-79. Plaintiffs maintain that any claim by the MCSD that the roadblocks are conducted to verify drivers’ licenses, vehicle registrations, or other traffic safety purposes is pretextual. Id. at ¶ 80.
Another allegedly racially disciminatory policing tactic used by the MCSD is pedestrian checkpoints, which Plaintiffs maintain are also concentrated in predominantly Black neighborhoods. Id. at ¶ 81. According to Plaintiffs, any individual stopped during a pedestrian checkpoint is typically required to produce a driver’s license or some other form of identification that is then run through police data bases to determine whether there are grounds for arresting the individual. Id. at ¶ 87. Plaintiffs allege that the “primary purpose of these pedestrian checkpoints is to conduct a fishing expedition to find any possible basis, no matter how tenuous, for issuing citations to and/or arresting members of the Black community.” Id. at ¶ 88.
The third allegedly discriminatory policing tactic about which Plaintiffs complain is that MCSD deputies, while engaging in unrelated duties, frequently enter the homes of Black residents without consent, warrant, or probable cause, and then conduct warrantless searches and seizures. Id. at ¶¶ 91-96. Plaintiffs further allege that MCSD deputies will detain and/or restrain Black individuals who are not suspected of wrong-doing. Id.
3

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 340 Filed 01/04/19 Page 4 of 17
The final discriminatory policing tactic about which Plaintiffs complain is referred to as “Jump-Out Patrols”. These patrols are conducted by plainclothes deputies who “jump-out” of unmarked vehicles, and allegedly detain and search individuals without reasonable suspicion of wrong-doing or probable cause. Id. at ¶¶ 97-104. Again, Plaintiffs allege that the Jump-Out Patrols are frequently conducted in Black neighborhoods and in the vicinity of Black businesses. Id. Plaintiffs allege that the tactics used under the MCSD Policing Program have resulted in a disproportionate rate of arrests between Whites and Blacks in Madison County. Id. at ¶ 106 (alleging that almost three quarters of the individuals arrested in Madison County between May and September of 2016 were Black).
According to Plaintiffs, the racially discriminatory policing policies about which they complain were initiated in the 1980’s, and were adopted and expanded at the time Randall Tucker (“Tucker”) became Sheriff of Madison County, in 2012. Id. at ¶¶ 134-35. For example, Plaintiffs allege that Tucker has maintained the preexisting General Roadblocks Policy that allows MCSD deputies to “conduct random roadblocks.” Plaintiffs challenge this policy on the grounds that it does not place explicit, neutral limitations on conduct that can be used by deputies when performing the roadblocks, and it does not require deputies to use race-neutral criteria when selecting roadblock locations. Id. at ¶¶ 139-40.
4

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 340 Filed 01/04/19 Page 5 of 17
Plaintiffs also allege that Tucker has exhibited deliberate indifference toward the constitutional violations resulting from the policing policies used by the MCSD as evidenced by his (1) failing to investigate complaints of racially discriminatory practices, (2) hiring a deputy who had a history of using excessive force, (3) choosing to not establish rules or regulations that would prohibit racial bias, (4) deciding to not maintain data regarding the policies for statistical purposes, and (5) ceasing to maintain records of complaints made against MCSD deputies. Id. at ¶¶ 146-68. Likewise, Plaintiffs allege that Madison County has exhibited deliberate indifference toward the constitutional violations resulting from the policing policies used by the MCSD as evidenced by its failing to (1) establish policies to prohibit racially discriminatory policing practices and/or unreasonable searches and seizures, (2) train and supervise MCSD personnel in order to prevent them from using unconstitutional policing policies, (3) monitor MCSD deputies to ensure that the policing policies they use comply with constitutional requirements, and/or (4) discipline MCSD deputies who use racially discriminatory policing practices. Id. at ¶¶ 169-74.
Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in this Court seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 2000(d) against Madison County, Sheriff Tucker, and multiple John Doe Deputies. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs first request that they
5

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 340 Filed 01/04/19 Page 6 of 17
be permitted to proceed as the following class: People who (1) are, or who appear to be, Black and those in their company, and (2) were, are, or will be in Madison County, and (3) were, are, or will be subject to the MCSD’s policy, custom, and/or practice of systematically executing unreasonable searches and seizures of persons, homes, cars, and property on the basis of race.
Id. at ¶ 300. As to themselves and the putative class members, Plaintiffs request relief under Section 1983 on claims that their constitutional rights, as protected by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, have been violated because the policing policies and practices used by the MCSD are targeted at Blacks, and have resulted in unreasonable searches and seizures (i.e. searches and seizures that are conducted without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, and are often accompanied by the use of excessive force). Id. at ¶¶ 310-15. Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the class, also request relief under 42 U.S.C. § 2000(d) on the grounds that the subject policing polices have been partially funded with federal dollars. Id. at ¶¶ 321-24. In addition to seeking declaratory relief, Plaintiffs request that the Court issue an injunction: (1) barring the “MCSD from continuing its policy, practice, and/or custom of unreasonably searching and seizing persons ... in the absence of reasonable suspicion or probable cause and on the basis of race ... ”;
6

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 340 Filed 01/04/19 Page 7 of 17
(2) requiring Madison County to establish an independent civilian complaint review board to investigate complaints against the MCSD, and to empower that board with the authority to (a) investigate the policies and practices of the MCSD, (b) subpoena documents and hear testimony during the course of its investigations, and (c) take binding disciplinary action against MCSD deputies who are found to have violated any individual’s civil rights; (3) requiring that Madison County and Tucker institute training, discipline, and promotion policies that are designed to eliminate the current policies and practices of MCSD that have caused the constitutional rights violations about which they complain; (4) requiring that Madison County and Tucker appropriately and adequately supervise MCSD personnel; (5) requiring that Madison County and Tucker implement measures under which deputies would be required to document, among other things, the locations and results (i.e. number and nature of issued citations/arrests, and the race and gender of those cited/charged) of roadblock and checkpoint stops; (6) requiring that Madison County and Tucker retain the documentation referenced above in a computerized database; (7) requiring that Madison County and Tucker publically disclose data gathered through the above referenced documentation; (8) requiring that Madison County and Tucker monitor and audit the policies and practices of the MCSD to ensure they comply with constitutional and statutory requirements;
7

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 340 Filed 01/04/19 Page 8 of 17
(9) requiring that Madison County and Tucker (1) “acknowledge the role of policing in past and present injustice and discrimination” and (2) acknowledge “how it is a hurdle to the promotion of community trust”; and (10) requiring that Madison County and Tucker “embrace a guardian mind set to build public trust and legitimacy by adopting procedural justice as the guiding principle for internal and external policies and practices to guide their interactions with the citizens they serve.”
Plaintiffs have now moved for certification of their class action claim.
II. Analysis Plaintiffs have moved for class action certification under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is well settled that the district court must conduct a “rigorous analysis” of all of the requirements for certification under Rule 23, see Castano v. American Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734, 740 (5th Cir. 1996)(citing General Tel. Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (1982)), and that Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving that those requirements are satisfied. See e.g. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011)(“Rule 23 does not set forth a mere pleading standard. A party seeking class certification must affirmatively demonstrate his compliance with the Rule — that is,
8

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 340 Filed 01/04/19 Page 9 of 17
he must be prepared to prove that there are in fact sufficiently numerous parties, common questions of law or fact, etc.”). As a general rule, a district court has broad discretion when deciding a motion for class certification. See Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 151 F.3d 402, 408 (5th Cir. 1998). In exercising its discretion, the court may not consider the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims at the certification stage, see Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 (1974), but may permissibly look past the pleadings to the record and any other completed discovery when deciding whether a class should be certified.
For a lawsuit to proceed as a class action, all of the requirements of Rule 23(a) and at least one of the alternative requirements of Rule 23(b) must be satisfied. See Allison, 151 F.3d at 411. Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
(a) Prerequisites. One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all only if: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a). As Plaintiffs have moved for certification
9

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 340 Filed 01/04/19 Page 10 of 17
under Rule 23(b)(2), they also bear the burden of showing: (b) Types of Class Actions. A class action may be maintained if Rule 23(a) is satisfied and if: ... (2) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.
FED. R. CIV. P. 23(b)(2). In their Motion for Class Certification, Plaintiffs now seek
to certify classes different than the one presented in their Complaint. Again, in the Complaint, Plaintiffs requested certification of the following class:
People who (1) are, or who appear to be, Black and those in their company, and (2) were, are, or will be in Madison County, and (3) were, are, or will be subject to the MCSD’s policy, custom, and/or practice of systematically executing unreasonable searches and seizures of persons, homes, cars, and property on the basis of race. Compl., ¶ 300. In moving for class certification, however, Plaintiffs now seek to certify and represent a “Targeting Class”, which would be comprised of “all Black persons who presently or in the future will reside in or travel through Madison County.” See Mot. for Class Cert. [Docket No. 231], 3. Plaintiffs also seek to certify and represent two subclasses. The first subclass is referred to as the “Roadblock Subclass”, which would be comprised of “all Black persons who travel or will travel by car through majority-Black areas of Madison County.” Id. The second subclass
10

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 340 Filed 01/04/19 Page 11 of 17
is the “Pedestrian Subclass”, which would be comprised of “all
Black persons who travel or will travel by foot in Madison County’s
majority-Black neighborhoods.” Id. Plaintiffs contend that the
common questions with respect to the proposed classes include:
[W]hether (i) the MCSD has a policy of targeting Black communities and racially profiling Black individuals, and whether this policy violates the Equal Protection Clause; (ii) whether the MCSD has a policy, custom, or consistent practice of conducting roadblocks in majority-Black areas of Madison County for purposes of crime control, and whether the roadblocks carried out pursuant to this policy are consistent with the requirements of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments; and (iii) whether the MCSD has a policy, custom, or consistent practice of engaging in searches and seizures of Black persons in Madison County in the absence of individualized reasonable suspicion, and if so, whether the searches and seizures carried out pursuant to this policy are consistent with the requirements of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Id. at 3-4.
Before conducting a Rule 23 analysis with respect to any of
the proposed classes, the Court must determine whether membership
in those classes is ascertainable by objective criteria. See e.g.
Frey v. First Nat’l Bank SW, 602 F. App’x 164, 168 (5th Cir.
2015)(“We have stated that “in order to maintain a class action,
the class sought to be represented must be adequately defined and
clearly ascertainable.”)(internal citations omitted). Although the
Court recognizes that the strict ascertainability requirements
associated with class action claims seeking damages under Rule
23(a) do not apply with the same vigor to class actions complaints
seeking prospective injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2), here the
11

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 340 Filed 01/04/19 Page 12 of 17
Court would have no ability to ascertain the membership of the proposed subclasses.
The Roadblock Subclass sought to be certified by Plaintiffs would be comprised of Black persons traveling by car “through majority-Black areas of Madison County.” Similarly, the Pedestrian Subclass would be comprised of Black persons traveling on foot “in Madison County’s majority-Black neighborhoods.” These subclasses beg the questions of “What constitutes a majority-Black area or a majority-Black neighborhood?”, and “Where are such areas and/or neighborhoods are geographically located in Madison County?” Thus this case differs greatly than those upon which Plaintiffs rely in arguing that an ascertainability requirement does not apply in civil rights actions.
For example, Plaintiffs cite to Marrow v. Washington, 277 F.R.D. 172 (E.D. Tex. 2011), a case in which a class comprised of members of racial or ethnic minority groups who were subject to being stopped by law enforcement for alleged traffic violations was certified. In Marrow, however, the class was specifically limited to individuals who were traveling in, through, or near the City of Tenaha, Texas. Similarly, in the case of Johnson v. City of Opelousas, a class was certified comprising of “all persons who have been or in the future will be arrested or detained under § 18.8.1 of the Opelousas Code”. Because the class was limited to individuals who were arrested or detained under a city ordinance,
12

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 340 Filed 01/04/19 Page 13 of 17
membership in the class would have necessarily been limited to individuals within the boundaries of the city. In both of these cases, membership in the classes was readily ascertainable based on the class definition that delineated specific geographic boundaries, i.e. city limits.
Here, because the phrases majority-Black areas and majorityBlack neighborhoods are vague and ambiguous, the Court finds Plaintiffs have failed to show that membership in those classes can be ascertained with any degree of certainty. Additionally, because membership in the subclasses cannot be ascertained with any degree of certainty, it is impossible to find that the majority of the subclass members face future harm as is required to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(2). See Maldonado v. Ochsner Clinic Found., 493 F.3d 521, 525 (5th Cir. 2007)(explaining that “Rule 23(b)(2) certification is ... inappropriate when the majority of the class does not face future harm.”). For these reasons, the Court finds the Motion for Class Certification, to the extent it seeks to certify the proposed Roadblock Class and Pedestrian Class, should be denied.
The Court likewise finds that the Targeting Class, which would be comprised of “all Black persons who presently or in the future will reside in or travel through Madison County”, cannot presently be certified. According to the pleadings, the common question respecting this class is “whether the MCSD has a policy of
13

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 340 Filed 01/04/19 Page 14 of 17
targeting Black communities and racially profiling Black individuals, and whether this policy violates the Equal Protection Clause.” Mot. for Class Cert., 3. Even if the Court were to find that the requirements of Rule 23(a) were satisfied with respect to this proposed class, it could not presently find that the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) have likewise been satisfied.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently again held that the following three requirements must be satisfied before a class can be certified under Rule 23(b)(2): “(1) class members must have been harmed in essentially the same way; (2) injunctive relief must predominate over monetary damage claims; and (3) the injunctive relief sought must be specific.” Ward v. Hellerstedt, --- F. App’x ---, 2018 WL 5045675, at 10 (5th Cir. Oct 16, 2018)(internal citations omitted). “[S]atisfaction of these requirements is premised on common behavior by the defendant toward the class, as opposed to the presence of common issues.” Id. Class members are “‘harmed in essentially the same way’ where they have each been subject to the same allegedly wrongful policy, despite variations in the degree of damages suffered by each.” Id.
Here, the policy underlying the common question presented by the Targeting Class concerns the targeting of Black communities and the racial profiling of Black individuals. It has not been shown, however, that all of class representatives have been subjected to the alleged policy. For example, in the Complaint, Plaintiffs
14

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 340 Filed 01/04/19 Page 15 of 17
Khadafy and Quinnetta Manning allege that MCSD deputies stormed their apartment, and demanded that they sign false witness statements regarding one of their neighbors. Compl. at ¶ 211. When they refused, the deputies allegedly hand-cuffed Khadafy Manning and choked him. Id. at 221. After Khadafy Manning again refused to sign the false witness statement, the deputies allegedly dragged him out of his apartment, shoved him into a patrol car, and beat him on the head and chest. Id. at ¶¶ 228 and 231. Khadafy Manning further alleges that several months later, MCSD deputies retaliated against him by again placing him in hand-cuffs, searching his vehicle, and issuing him a citation for driving with a suspended license. Id. at 237-38.
While the alleged actions taken by the MCSD deputies are constitutionally suspect, there has been no showing that they were taken based on a wide-spread policy aimed at targeting Black communities and/or engaging in racial profiling. Instead, the allegations suggest that the Mannings were specifically sought out by the MCSD deputies based on their living in close proximity to the neighbor against whom the deputies wanted false witness statements, and then Khadafy Manning was allegedly subjected to a false arrest and the use of excessive force when he refused to provide such statement. Because the allegations in the Complaint do not show that the Mannings were subjected to the same Black community-wide targeting/racial profiling policies that form the
15

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 340 Filed 01/04/19 Page 16 of 17
common question underlying the Targeting Class, i.e. they were not harmed in essentially the same way as the other putative members of the class, the Targeting Class cannot presently be certified under Rule 23(b)(2).
In sum, the Court finds that the class and subclasses proposed by Plaintiffs in this case cannot now be certified because the members of the subclasses are not ascertainable, and it has not been shown that all of the members of Targeting Class, which would necessarily include class representatives Khadafy and Quinnetta Manning, have been harmed by the allegedly discriminatory policy that forms the common question with respect to that class. As opposed to dismissing the class action claim at this time, however, the Court will grant Plaintiffs leave to amend their Complaint to attempt to cure the defects in their allegations. As Plaintiffs will be granted leave to amend their Complaint, the Motions of Defendants for Summary Judgment will be dismissed, without prejudice, thereby permitting Defendants to again seek summary judgment after the amended complaint is filed or the time period for so doing has expired.
IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons: IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification [Docket No. 231] is hereby denied.
16

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 340 Filed 01/04/19 Page 17 of 17
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs are hereby granted thirty days, up to and including February 4, 2019, to file an Amended Complaint in this case setting forth the proposed classes they seek to certify, and correcting the pleading deficiencies identified in this Opinion and Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motions of Defendants for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ claims [Docket Nos. 209, 211, 218, 220, 222, 228, and 256] are hereby dismissed without prejudice thereby permitting Defendants to again seek summary judgment after the amended complaint is filed, or the time period for so doing has expired.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other motions filed in conjunction with the class certification issue [Docket Nos. 237, 263, 269, 270, 272, 274, 285, 291, 307, 316, 318, and 320] are hereby dismissed as moot.
SO ORDERED this the 4th day of January, 2019.
s/ William H. Barbour, Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
17

 
 Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 1 of 88

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION

LATOYA BROWN; LAWRENCE BLACKMON; HERBERT ANTHONY GREEN; KHADAFY MANNING; QUINNETTA MANNING; MARVIN MCFIELD; NICHOLAS SINGLETON; STEVEN SMITH; BESSIE THOMAS; and BETTY JEAN WILLIAMS TUCKER, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MADISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI; SHERIFF RANDALL S. TUCKER, in his official capacity; and MADISON COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPUTY SLADE MOORE, in his individual capacity,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 17-cv-347 (CWR/LRA)
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND INDIVIDUAL DAMAGES
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs Latoya Brown, Lawrence Blackmon, Khadafy Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, and Betty Jean Williams Tucker (the “Class Representative Plaintiffs”) bring this Second Amended Class Action Complaint (“Amended Complaint”) against Defendants Madison County, Mississippi (“Madison County”) and Sheriff Randall S. Tucker, in his official capacity (“Sheriff Tucker”) on behalf of two classes of similarly situated persons, defined herein. Plaintiffs Khadafy Manning and Quinnetta Manning also bring claims for damages in their individual capacities against Madison County, Sheriff Tucker, and Madison County Sheriff’s Deputy Slade Moore. All Plaintiffs assert civil rights claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 2000d. This Amended Complaint is brought in accordance with the Court’s June 10, 2019 Agreed Order, which lifted the stay for the limited purpose of allowing Plaintiffs to file and serve their Second Amended Complaint.

1

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 2 of 88
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................................................... 5 JURISDICTION & VENUE......................................................................................................... 12 JURY DEMAND .......................................................................................................................... 13 PARTIES ...................................................................................................................................... 13 I. Plaintiffs ............................................................................................................................ 13 II. Defendants ........................................................................................................................ 15 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS ....................................................................................................... 17 I. A Brief Overview of Madison County, Mississippi ......................................................... 17 II. The MCSD’s Policing Program ........................................................................................ 19
A. Pretextual and Highly Intrusive Vehicular Roadblocks........................................ 21 1. The Primary Purpose of the MCSD’s System of Roadblocks Is to Target Black Motorists for Unreasonable Searches and Seizures ............ 28
B. Suspicionless Searches and Seizures of Black Pedestrians .................................. 29 C. Warrantless and Consentless Searches of the Homes of Black Residents............ 33 III. Race-Based Statistical Disparities in Policing Outcomes Provide Compelling Evidence of the MCSD’s Policing Program ..................................................................... 35 IV. The MCSD’s Policing Program Is Longstanding and Deeply-Entrenched ...................... 39 V. Sheriff Tucker Has Adopted, Implemented, and Expanded the Policing Program .......... 46 A. Sheriff Tucker Has Enacted a Written Roadblock Policy That Sanctions
Unconstitutional Racially Discriminatory Roadblocks ........................................ 47 VI. Sheriff Tucker Has Been Deliberately Indifferent to the Constitutional Violations
Caused by the Policing Program....................................................................................... 49 A. On Information and Belief, Sheriff Tucker Failed to Investigate an MCSD
Deputy’s Claim of Unconstitutional Racially Discriminatory Policing Practices ................................................................................................................ 50
2

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 3 of 88
B. Sheriff Tucker Hired a Deputy with a Documented History of Misconduct Involving the Excessive Use of Force .................................................................. 51
C. Sheriff Tucker Has Not Established any Rules or Regulations Prohibiting Racial Bias in Policing.......................................................................................... 52
D. The MCSD Maintains Minimal Data And Does Not Track Racial Disparities In Policing........................................................................................... 52
VII. The Board of Supervisors Has Been Deliberately Indifferent to the Constitutional Violations Caused by the Policing Program ..................................................................... 53
VIII. The Policing Program Has Caused Thousands of Constitutional Violations ................... 56 ALLEGATIONS OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFFS ............................................ 56 I. Latoya Brown.................................................................................................................... 57
A. Pedestrian Stop Class Claims Of Latoya Brown .................................................. 57 B. Roadblock Class Claims Of Latoya Brown .......................................................... 58 II. Lawrence Blackmon ......................................................................................................... 58 A. Roadblock Class Claims Of Lawrence Blackmon ................................................ 59 B. Additional Allegations Of MCSD Misconduct..................................................... 59 III. Khadafy Manning ............................................................................................................. 60 A. Pedestrian Stop Class Claims Of Khadafy Manning ............................................ 61 IV. Nick Singleton .................................................................................................................. 61 A. Roadblock Class Claims Of Nick Singleton ......................................................... 61 B. Additional Allegations Of MCSD Misconduct..................................................... 62 V. Steven Smith ..................................................................................................................... 63 A. Pedestrian Stop Class Claims Of Steven Smith .................................................... 63 B. Additional Allegations Of MCSD Misconduct..................................................... 64 VI. Bessie Thomas .................................................................................................................. 64 A. Roadblock Class Claims of Bessie Thomas.......................................................... 65 B. Additional Allegations Of MCSD Misconduct..................................................... 65
3

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 4 of 88 VII. Betty Jean Williams Tucker.............................................................................................. 66
A. Roadblock Class Claims Of Betty Jean Williams Tucker .................................... 66 B. Additional Allegations Of MCSD Misconduct..................................................... 67 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS ............................................................................................. 68 INDIVIDUAL ALLEGATIONS OF KHADAFY AND QUINNETTA MANNING ................. 72 CAUSES OF ACTION ................................................................................................................. 77 I. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION ........................................................................................... 77 II. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION ...................................................................................... 78 III. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION .......................................................................................... 80 IV. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION ...................................................................................... 81 V. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION ........................................................................................... 82 VI. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION .......................................................................................... 83 PRAYER FOR RELIEF ............................................................................................................... 83
4

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 5 of 88
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. The Sheriff’s Department of Madison County, Mississippi (“MCSD”) implements a coordinated top-down program of methodically targeting Black individuals for suspicionless searches and seizures while they are driving their cars, walking in their neighborhoods, or even just spending time in their own homes (the “Policing Program”). MCSD deputies frequently use unjustified and excessive force in conducting these searches and seizures. 2. The MCSD’s Policing Program impacts virtually every aspect of Black residents’ lives. Simple daily activities—such as commuting to work, grocery shopping, visiting friends and family, attending church, or even sitting on the steps outside one’s own home—present the very real possibility of unlawful and humiliating searches and seizures, as well as the attendant prospect of arrest and jail time for unpaid fines and fees.1 3. As a result, many Black residents of Madison County experience chronic fear and anxiety, disruptions to their everyday activities, restrictions on travel within their own neighborhoods and towns, and a tremendous reluctance to contact law enforcement officials for assistance when necessary. Some Black community members go so far as to avoid leaving their homes to limit the risk of encountering one of the MCSD’s many illegal roadblocks or pedestrian “checkpoints” described below. In effect, the Policing Program has placed the Black community of Madison County under a permanent state of siege.
1 Whenever an MCSD deputy stops a Black individual, the deputy typically checks that individual’s identification to determine whether he or she owes outstanding fines to the County. These fines often stem from traffic violations or other minor infractions. Black individuals are more likely than white individuals in Madison County to lack the resources to pay these fines, as well as the added court fees, in full on their scheduled court dates. When an individual fails to pay the required amount, the court will issue a warrant for his/her arrest to compel collection.
5

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 6 of 88
4. The hallmark tactics of the MCSD’s longstanding and deeply-entrenched Policing Program include:
 Vehicular roadblocks designed and placed to target Black individuals for highly intrusive, pretextual, and suspicionless searches and seizures in Madison County’s majority-Black towns, residential neighborhoods, and business districts; and
 Pedestrian stops – including “checkpoints” at the entrances and exits of predominantly-Black housing complexes, and “jump out” patrols, often of plainclothes deputies deployed in unmarked cars – designed to target Black individuals for suspicionless searches and seizures;
The MCSD also relies on a broad range of other methods—including suspicionless traffic stops and warrantless and consentless searches of the homes of Black residents —to target Black community members for illegal searches and seizures.
5. The MCSD has deployed the unconstitutional racially discriminatory policing tactics described above pursuant to a single overarching policy, custom, and/or practice of systematically conducting unreasonable searches and seizures of persons, homes, cars, and property on the basis of race.
6. The Policing Program is so persistent and widespread as to practically have the force of law in Madison County.
7. Like many policing policies, practices, and customs deemed unconstitutional by federal courts and the United States Department of Justice,2 each of the policing practices conducted pursuant to the MCSD’s Policing Program independently violates both the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
2 See, e.g., U.S. Department of Justice, Investigation of the Baltimore City Police Department (2016), https://www.justice.gov/crt/file/883296/download; U.S. Department of Justice, Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department (2015), https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/pressreleases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report_1.pdf.
6

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 7 of 88
8. The Policing Program is rooted in Madison County’s infamous history of racial
animus. The wealthiest county in Mississippi, Madison County is now and has always been acutely racially segregated. Past Madison County Sheriffs have violently opposed racial integration, led white supremacist organizations,3 and willfully turned a blind eye to racially discriminatory conditions of confinement. These sheriffs used many of the same unconstitutional racially discriminatory policing tactics employed in the Policing Program. For example, during the Civil Rights era, Madison County Sheriff Billy Noble regularly established roadblocks to
conduct unconstitutional searches and seizures of Black motorists. 9. The MCSD’s Policing Program has resulted in stark racial disparities in policing
outcomes that cannot be explained by alternative non-race-based factors. Although only 38% of Madison County residents are Black,4 approximately 73% of arrests in Madison County between May and September of 2016 were of Black individuals. Only 23% arrests during this time period were of white individuals, even though Madison County is 57% white.5 These statistics suggest
that the arrest rate for Black individuals is nearly five times the arrest rate for white individuals in Madison County.6
3 See, e.g., Officer Memorials, Sheriff Randy Tucker, http://www.sheriffrandytucker.com/officermemorials/ (last visited February 4, 2019) (reprinting September 10, 1959 Madison County Herald article stating that former Madison County Sheriff Marion F. Simpson “was one of the organizers of the local Citizens Council and remained as one of its most active leaders, also serving on the Executive Committee of the state association of Citizens Councils.”). The Citizens Council was formed in opposition to desegregation and “gr[e]w to be the most powerful opponent of civil rights activism in Mississippi.” The Citizens’ Council, AMERICAN RADIOWORKS, http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/mississippi/c1.html (last visited February 4, 2019). 4 Based on 2010 Census data. See Quickfacts: Madison County, Mississippi, U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/28089,28 (last visited February 4, 2019). 5 Based on 2010 Census data. See Quickfacts: Madison County, Mississippi, U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/28089,28 (last visited February 4, 2019). 6 If the MCSD’s arrest rates were proportional to the population, then approximately 38% of arrests would be of Black individuals and approximately 57% of arrests would be of white individuals. The rate
7

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 8 of 88
10. Because the MCSD targets Black communities for roadblocks and suspicionless pedestrian stops, the vast majority of individuals arrested at roadblocks and pedestrian stops in Madison County are Black. Between May and September 2016, 81% of arrests at roadblocks and 82% of arrests at pedestrian stops in Madison County were of Black individuals.
11. At roadblocks and pedestrian stops, the MCSD overwhelmingly arrests Black individuals. However, white arrestees are 1.4 times more likely than Black arrestees to be charged with driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. They are 1.1 times more likely to be charged with a drug crime. In contrast, Black arrestees face over 3.2 times the odds for white individuals of being charged only with a petty revenue-generating vehicle infraction, like having a burned out headlight or no seat belt. This data suggests a pattern of population-targeted as opposed to public safety-motivated policing.
12. Over the years, the MCSD’s Policing Program has led to thousands of violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The Policing Program is “unquestionably . . . the moving force” behind these constitutional violations within the meaning of the Supreme Court’s decision in Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 694-95 (1978).
13. Since taking office in January 2012, Sheriff Randall S. Tucker has adopted and implemented the Policing Program in its entirety.
14. Sheriff Tucker has not only enforced the Policing Program but also expanded its scope. Among other actions, he has enacted or maintained a written roadblock policy that
of arrests of Black individuals in Madison County is roughly double this expected percentage (73%, or approximately 2 times the percentage of Madison County’s population that is Black). The rate of arrests of white individuals is less than half the expected percentage (23%, or approximately 0.4 times the expected percentage). In other words, the arrest rate for Black individuals is nearly five times the arrest rate for white individuals in Madison County.
8

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 9 of 88
sanctions unconstitutional racially discriminatory roadblocks. In essence, Sheriff Tucker has empowered MCSD deputies with enhanced authority and implicit encouragement to target the members of Madison County’s Black community for unreasonable searches and seizures.
15. Sheriff Tucker has been deliberately indifferent to the constitutional violations caused by the Policing Program. Among other actions and inactions, he has: (1) on information and belief, failed to investigate a Black MCSD deputy’s complaint of racially discriminatory policing practices and the unjustified use of physical force against Black community members; (2) hired a deputy with a documented history of misconduct involving the excessive use of force; (3) chosen not to establish any rules or regulations prohibiting racial bias in policing; (4) decided not to maintain basic data on the MCSD’s policing practices, including the differential impact of the MCSD’s policing on Black communities; and (5) failed to establish or maintain objective or reliable procedures for supervision or discipline of deputies, or for investigation of civilian complaints.
16. For at least a decade, the Madison County Board of Supervisors has known that the MCSD systematically targets the Black community for unreasonable searches and seizures. The Madison County Board of Supervisors has also been aware of a pattern of constitutional violations suffered by the Black residents of Madison County as a direct result of the MCSD’s Policing Program.
17. However, the Madison County Board of Supervisors has been deliberately indifferent to these constitutional violations by failing to investigate the MCSD’s racially discriminatory policing practices and/or its pattern of conducting unreasonable searches and seizures, and by failing to require the MCSD to take any actions to: (a) establish policies that prohibit racially discriminatory policing practices and/or unreasonable searches and seizures; (b)
9

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 10 of 88
screen, train, and supervise MCSD deputies, employees, and agents to prevent MCSD personnel from employing unconstitutional racially discriminatory policing practices and/or conducting unreasonable searches and seizures; (c) monitor MCSD deputies, employees, and agents to ensure that their policing practices comply with constitutional requirements; and/or (d) discipline MCSD deputies, employees, and agents who employ racially discriminatory policing practices and/or conduct unreasonable searches and seizures.
18. This policy of inaction by the Madison County Board of Supervisors is the functional equivalent of a decision by Madison County itself to violate the Constitution. By failing to take any steps to investigate or remedy the MCSD’s systematic targeting of Black residents for unreasonable searches and seizures, the Board of Supervisors has implicitly sanctioned and endorsed the Policing Program.
19. Class Representative Plaintiffs Latoya Brown, Lawrence Blackmon, Khadafy Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, and Betty Jean Williams Tucker are among the thousands of victims of Madison County’s Policing Program. Most of the Class Representative Plaintiffs have been subjected to the MCSD’s unreasonable race-based searches and seizures multiple times in recent months and years. The Class Representative Plaintiffs seek to represent two classes, each consisting of similarly situated Black individuals who have been, are now, or will be subject to two key components of the MCSD’s racially discriminatory Policing Program: (i) the MCSD’s policy or longstanding practice of establishing roadblocks in the County based on the racial demographics of the surrounding area and/or for purposes of general crime control, rather than traffic safety; and (ii) the MCSD’s policy or longstanding practice of conducting suspicionless stops and searches of Black pedestrians.
10

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 11 of 88
20. Class Representative Plaintiffs Latoya Brown, Lawrence Blackmon, Nicholas
Singleton, Bessie Thomas, and Betty Jean Williams Tucker seek to represent the following class
in order to obtain declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Defendants’ policy or
longstanding practice of unconstitutional vehicular roadblocks:
All Black motorists and passengers who since May 2014 have been or will be in the future stopped or detained at a vehicular checkpoint or roadblock instituted by agents of the Madison County Sheriff’s Department while traveling in, through, or in the immediate vicinity of the following locations within Madison County, Mississippi: (i) the city of Canton and the adjoining unincorporated area contained within U.S. Census tract No. 305; (ii) the communities of Flora and Kearney Park and surrounding unincorporated areas contained within U.S. Census tract No. 303.02; (iii) the city of Ridgeland; and (iv) the unincorporated areas of Madison County contained within U.S. Census tracts Nos. 309 and 310, including the community of Camden.
21. Class Representative Plaintiffs Latoya Brown, Steven Smith, and Khadafy
Manning seek to represent the following class in order to obtain declaratory and injunctive relief
with respect to Defendants’ policy or longstanding practice of unconstitutional pedestrian stops:
All Black persons who since May 2014 have been or will be in the future stopped, detained, questioned, or searched by agents of the Madison County Sheriff’s Department in the absence of reasonable, articulable suspicion or probable cause within Madison County, Mississippi while traveling as pedestrians or while present within the curtilages of homes or the grounds or common areas of multiunit residential complexes or developments.
22. The defendants in this action are Madison County and Sheriff Tucker, in his
official capacity as the policymaking official of the MCSD (together, “Defendants”); as well as
Madison County Sheriff’s Department Deputy Slade Moore.
23. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the members of the classes they seek to
certify, seek relief for Defendants’ violations of their rights, privileges, and immunities secured
by the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”), the Fourth and Fourteenth
11

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 12 of 88
Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, et seq. (“Title VI”).
24. The Class Representative Plaintiffs seek to represent certified classes for the purpose of obtaining injunctive and declaratory relief only. They seek class-wide judgments declaring that the policies, practices, and/or customs for which each class seeks relief violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and class-wide injunctive relief enjoining Defendants from continuing to implement these policies, practices, and/or customs. Unless such declaratory and injunctive relief is obtained, the Class Representative Plaintiffs and class members will continue to face a substantial threat that they will again be subject to the unconstitutional racially discriminatory policing practices described herein.
25. In addition, Plaintiffs Khadafy Manning and Quinnetta Manning seek compensatory and punitive damages only for themselves, against Defendant MCSD Deputy Slade Moore.
26. Plaintiffs also seek an award of attorneys’ fees and costs and such other relief as this Court deems equitable and just.
JURISDICTION & VENUE 27. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. 28. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction) and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (civil rights jurisdiction). 29. This Court is authorized to grant declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 30. This Court is authorized to award attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). 31. Venue is properly set within the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
12

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 13 of 88
JURY DEMAND 32. Plaintiffs demand trial by jury in this action on each and every one of their claims.
PARTIES I. Plaintiffs
33. Plaintiff LATOYA BROWN (“Ms. Brown”) is a 29-year-old Black woman who has spent nearly her entire life in Canton, Mississippi. She recently moved to Dallas, Texas, where she lives with named Plaintiff STEVEN SMITH and their four daughters, but maintains strong connections to Madison County and expects to regularly visit and eventually to move back. Ms. Brown is a stay-at-home mother. Ms. Brown asserts claims as a representative of both the Roadblock Class and the Pedestrian Stop Class.
34. Plaintiff LAWRENCE BLACKMON (“Mr. Blackmon”) is a 33-year-old Black man who has resided in Canton, Mississippi since 1998. Mr. Blackmon recently completed a Masters of Law program at George Washington University Law School in Washington D.C., and is now a practicing attorney based out of a Canton office. Mr. Blackmon asserts claims as a representative of the Roadblock Class.
35. Plaintiff KHADAFY MANNING (“Mr. Manning”) is a 37-year-old physically disabled Black man who resides in Canton, Mississippi. He has lived in Canton for over 20 years. Mr. Manning suffers from a painful nerve condition that makes it difficult for him to walk without a cane. He is married to Plaintiff QUINNETTA MANNING, and they are raising three sons together. Mr. Manning volunteers his time as an assistant coach for a youth T-Ball team in Canton. Mr. Manning asserts claims as a representative of the Pedestrian Stop Class. Mr. Manning also brings individual claims for damages.
36. Plaintiff QUINNETTA MANNING (“Mrs. Manning”) is a 31-year-old Black woman who was born and raised in Canton, Mississippi, where she still resides. She is married to
13

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 14 of 88
named Plaintiff Mr. Manning, and the couple has three young sons together. Ms. Manning solely asserts individual claims for damages.7
37. Plaintiff NICK SINGLETON (“Mr. Singleton”) is a 37-year-old Black man who has lived in Canton, Mississippi since 2004. Mr. Singleton works as a field service technician for a telecommunications company. He is the father of two young boys. Mr. Singleton asserts claims as a representative of the Roadblock Class.
38. Plaintiff STEVEN SMITH (“Mr. Smith”) is a 29-year-old Black man who has spent nearly his entire life in Canton, Mississippi. Last year, Mr. Smith moved to Dallas, Texas, where he lives with named Plaintiff Ms. Brown and their four young daughters, but he maintains strong connections to Madison County and expects to regularly visit and eventually to move back. Mr. Smith currently works at a manufacturing facility. Mr. Smith asserts claims as a representative of the Pedestrian Stop Class.
39. Plaintiff BESSIE THOMAS (“Mrs. Thomas”) is a 60-year-old Black woman who has lived in Canton, Mississippi for the past five decades. Mrs. Thomas serves as a minister at two local churches, and she is involved in taking care of her young grandchildren. For three years, Mrs. Thomas operated a corner store in Canton. Ms. Thomas asserts claims as a representative of the Roadblock Class.
40. Plaintiff BETTY JEAN WILLIAMS TUCKER (“Mrs. Tucker”) is a 64-year-old Black woman who was born, raised, and currently resides in Canton, Mississippi. For over a decade, Mrs. Tucker worked as a welder in a Canton manufacturing warehouse. She has five children, twelve grandchildren, and three great grand-children. Mrs. Tucker is among the
7 Ms. Manning’s full legal name is Quinnetta Katrice Thomas; Manning is her married name.
14

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 15 of 88
longest-lived residents in her Canton neighborhood. Ms. Tucker asserts claims as a representative of the Roadblock Class. II. Defendants
41. Defendant MADISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI is a political subdivision of the State of Mississippi that can sue and be sued in its own name. Upon information and belief, Madison County programs and activities, including programs and activities of the MCSD, receive federal financial assistance.8 The County and its departments are therefore required under federal law to conduct their programs and activities in a racially and ethnically nondiscriminatory manner. The “chief policy making and administrative body” of the County is, and at all times relevant hereto has been, the Madison County Board of Supervisors (the “Board of Supervisors” or the “Board”), which describes itself as “the one body which supervises almost everything that goes on in county government.”9 The Board of Supervisors is comprised of five elected Supervisors, one from each of the five districts in Madison County. For at least a decade, Defendant Madison County has had actual knowledge of a longstanding pattern of constitutional violations inflicted on the Black community by the MCSD pursuant to the Policing Program. By both its action and inaction, Defendant Madison County has either sanctioned, or been deliberately indifferent to, the MCSD’s policy of systematically executing unreasonable searches and seizures on the basis of race.
8 See, e.g., Office of the State Auditor, Mississippi, Madison County, Mississippi: Audited Financial Statements and Special Reports For the Year Ended September 30, 2015, at 57 (Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards), http://www.osa.ms.gov/documents/counties/2015/15cMadison%20County-cpa.pdf. 9 Board of Supervisors, Madison County, Mississippi, http://madison-co.com/elected-offices/board-ofsupervisors (last visited January 30, 2019).
15

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 16 of 88
42. Defendant RANDALL S. TUCKER is, and has been since January 2012, the Sheriff of Madison County, Mississippi. Under Mississippi law, sheriffs “are final policymakers with respect to all law enforcement decisions made within their counties.”10 Sheriff Tucker is and was responsible for each of the unconstitutional racially discriminatory practices that comprises the Policing Program. He is either the chief architect of, or has adopted and endorsed, every one of the illegal policing tactics described herein. Sheriff Tucker is, and has been since January 2012, responsible for the hiring, screening, training, retention, supervision, discipline, counseling, and control of the MCSD’s deputies, and other personnel who are or were employed by the MCSD, including Defendant MCSD Deputy Slade Moore, named herein. He is sued in his official capacity.
43. Defendant MCSD Deputy Slade Moore was, at all times relevant herein, a deputy, employee, and agent of the MCSD, a department of Madison County. Deputy Moore is sued in his individual capacity.
44. At all times relevant herein, Deputy Moore has acted under color of State law in the course and scope of his duties and functions as an agent, employee, and officer of Madison County in engaging in the actions and inactions described herein. At all times relevant herein, the Board of Supervisors, Sheriff Tucker, and Deputy Moore have acted for and on behalf of the County with the power and authority vested in them as officers, agents, and employees of the County and incidental to the lawful pursuit of their duties as officers, employees, and agents of the County.
10 Brooks v. George Cty, Miss., 84 F.3d 157, 165 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing Huddleston v. Shirley, 787 F. Supp. 109, 112 (N.D. Miss. 1992) and Miss. Code § 19-25-1, et seq.).
16

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 17 of 88 45. At all times relevant herein, Deputy Moore has violated clearly established
constitutional standards under the Fourth Amendment of which a reasonable person would have known.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS I. A Brief Overview of Madison County, Mississippi
46. Madison County is a majority-white county. According to the 2010 census, approximately 58% of Madison County residents are white and 38% are Black.11 The County is now and has always been acutely racially segregated.
47. More than a decade ago, now-Chief Judge Carl. E. Stewart of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit acknowledged the “confluence of . . . geography and
11 Quickfacts: Madison County, Mississippi, U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/28089,28 (last visited February 4, 2019).
17

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 18 of 88
demography” in Madison County.12 He stated that the resulting “racial isolation” in Madison County was “foreboding and potentially deleterious.”13 Chief Judge Stewart’s description of segregation in Madison County still rings true today. Madison County remains divided into predominantly Black towns, neighborhoods, and business districts and predominantly white towns, neighborhoods, and business districts.
48. Madison County, located directly to the north of Jackson, is approximately 57% white and 38% Black. The white population is concentrated in the southern part of the county, including the city of Madison (85% white; 10% Black; population 26,000)14 and portions of the city of Ridgeland (55% white; 36% Black; population 24,000).15 The Black population is concentrated in the north and west of the county, including the city of Canton (70% Black; 24% white; population 13,000)16; the communities of Flora (51% Black; 47% white; population 1,800)17 and Kearney Park and surrounding unincorporated areas18; and the rural area in the north of the County, including the community of Camden.19 Southeast Ridgeland also has a
12 Anderson v. School Bd. of Madison Cty, 517 F.3d 292, 305 (5th Cir. 2008) (Stewart, J.) (concurring in the majority’s affirmance of the district court’s grant of the Madison County School District’s motion for unitary status). 13 Id. 14 Quickfacts: Madison City, Mississippi, U.S. Census Bureau, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/2844520 (last visited January 30, 2019). 15 Quickfacts: Ridgeland City, Mississippi, U.S. Census Bureau, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/2862520 (last visited January 30, 2019). 16 Quickfacts: Canton City, Mississippi, U.S. Census Bureau, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/2811100 (last visited January 30, 2019). 17 Flora, Mississippi Population, CensusViewer, http://censusviewer.com/city/MS/Flora (last visited January 30, 2019). 18 These unincorporated areas comprise U.S. Census tract No. 303.02. 19 These unincorporated areas comprise U.S. Census tracts Nos. 309 and 310.
18

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 19 of 88
substantial Black population. Madison County has experienced significant growth in recent decades. Since 1990, its population has nearly doubled, largely due to the growth of the Madison and Ridgeland areas. A map of Madison County prepared by the U.S. Census bureau is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
49. Madison County is the wealthiest county in Mississippi,20 and its wealth is heavily concentrated among its white citizens. For example, the average household income in the City of Madison is more than double that in Canton ($103,000 vs. $46,000); residents of the City of Madison own the homes in which they live at nearly double the rate of Canton residents (92% vs. 49%); and the poverty rate in the City of Madison is a small fraction of the rate in Canton (3% vs. 25%).21
50. Madison County’s pervasive racial segregation has facilitated the MCSD’s racially discriminatory policing practices by enabling MCSD deputies to use geographic criteria to isolate and target Black residents of Madison County for unconstitutional searches and seizures. II. The MCSD’s Policing Program
51. For at least two decades, if not longer, the MCSD has implemented a coordinated top-down program of methodically targeting Black individuals for suspicionless searches and seizures.
52. Pursuant to the Policing Program, the MCSD employs a series of integrated tactics to systematically conduct unreasonable searches and seizures of persons, homes, cars, and
20 Mississippi Per Capita Income by County 2017, Mississippi Department of Employment Security, http://mdes.ms.gov/media/8639/pci.pdf (last visited January 30, 2019). 21 Quickfacts: Canton City, Mississippi and Madison City, Mississippi, U.S. Census Bureau, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/INC110215/2811100,2844520 (last visited February 4, 2019).
19

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 20 of 88
property on the basis of race. During the course of these illegal searches and seizures, MCSD deputies routinely detain members of the Black community without probable cause, and often issue citations and make arrests either without legal justification or to recover outstanding fines and fees, typically for minor infractions.
53. The various unconstitutional racially discriminatory policing practices that comprise the Policing Program range in scope and severity, but they are all conducted pursuant to the MCSD’s single overarching policy, custom, and/or practice of systematically conducting unreasonable searches and seizures of persons, homes, cars, and property on the basis of race. This policy, custom, and/or practice is so persistent and widespread as to practically have the force of law in Madison County.
54. Like many policing policies, practices, and customs deemed unconstitutional by federal courts and the United States Department of Justice,22 the MCSD’s Policing Program combines unlawful methods of searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment with an impermissible race-based classification in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
55. The MCSD’s Policing Program also violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because race-based suspicion is integral to its functioning. The MCSD’s Policing Program in fact depends on the use of race to determine which individuals to target for unreasonable searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment. As such, the MCSD’s
22 See, e.g., U.S. Department of Justice, Investigation of the Baltimore City Police Department (2016), https://www.justice.gov/crt/file/883296/download; U.S. Department of Justice, Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department (2015), https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/pressreleases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report_1.pdf.
20

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 21 of 88
Policing Program is a government program with an express racial classification; it is subject to, and fails, strict scrutiny.
56. The most frequently-used illegal policing tactics of the MCSD’s Policing Program are described below, and substantiated by the allegations of the Class Representative Plaintiffs in paragraphs 173 through 243 below. In addition, the MCSD also engages in a broad range of other unconstitutional racially discriminatory policing practices—including suspicionless traffic stops and suspicionless frisks of pedestrians—that impermissibly target Black community members for unlawful searches and seizures. Taken together, these policing methods have effectively placed the Black community of Madison County under a permanent state of siege.
A. Pretextual and Highly Intrusive Vehicular Roadblocks 57. The MCSD operates a network of pretextual and highly intrusive vehicular roadblocks concentrated in and around the majority Black cities and neighborhoods of Madison County. These roadblocks are typically located on roadways close to Black homes, employers of Black residents, Black-owned businesses, and civic institutions frequented by the Black community. 58. Because the MCSD targets Black communities for roadblocks, the vast majority of individuals arrested at Madison County’s roadblocks are Black. Almost 81% of roadblock arrests in Madison County between May and September of 2016 were of Black individuals.
21

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 22 of 88
59. The MCSD maintains a formal written policy (the “General Roadblocks Policy”) that expressly authorizes “[a]ll [d]eputies” to “conduct random roadblocks for all traffic violations, escapees, or wanted subjects.”23 The General Roadblocks Policy places no restrictions on how and when MCSD deputies may conduct these roadblocks. Significantly, the General Roadblocks Policy does not require deputies to use race-neutral criteria when selecting roadblock locations. A copy of the MCSD’s Roadblocks Policy is attached as Exhibit B.
60. The MCSD regularly establishes roadblocks in Canton, the county seat and the largest majority-Black city within Madison County. Most of the Canton neighborhoods targeted for roadblocks are lined by quiet, residential streets, not busy highways or thoroughfares. A map depicting recent representative roadblock locations appears below.
23 General Roadblocks, in POLICY AND PROCEDURE, Office of the Sheriff, Madison County, Mississippi. 22

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 23 of 88
61. The MCSD sometimes sets up more than one vehicular roadblock in the Canton area within a single day; multiple vehicular roadblocks within a single week are not uncommon.
62. The MCSD often sets up roadblocks in poorly-lit, difficult-to-see locations, and these are often manned by plainclothes MCSD deputies who drive unmarked vehicles. While these deputies may wear tactical body armor over their plain clothes, the deputies are not otherwise identifiable as law enforcement officers. Such roadblocks are rarely, if ever, located in the predominantly white neighborhoods and business districts of Madison County.
23

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 24 of 88
63. In one instance in 2015, a Black individual (the “driver”) was stopped at a roadblock by an MCSD deputy who waved him down with a flashlight while standing in the middle of a dark and isolated road. There were no other law enforcement vehicles or any other signs of a roadblock. The driver reported that if he had not been paying close attention, he could have struck the MCSD deputy because the deputy was barely visible. The MCSD deputy asked the driver to get out of the car, even though there was no basis for reasonable suspicion. Only after searching the driver unlawfully did the MCSD deputy permit the driver to proceed.
64. Often, the MCSD’s roadblocks are “roving” in nature. Deputies will sometimes drive away after a short time to set up a roadblock at another location nearby. At other times, plainclothes deputies will park their vehicles in one location and walk to a different street corner to flag down motorists with flashlights.
65. The MCSD also sets up semi-concealed roadblocks within the parking lots of Madison County’s majority-Black housing complexes. These roadblocks are usually located at the sole operational entry and exit to the complexes. A map depicting recent representative roadblock locations appears below. These roadblocks unreasonably violate Black residents’ legitimate expectations of privacy in and around their own homes, and unconstitutionally restrict their freedom to leave and return to their homes unimpeded by government intrusion.
24

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 25 of 88
66. Once an MCSD deputy stops a vehicle at a roadblock, the deputy typically requires both the driver of the vehicle and any passengers riding in the vehicle to provide a driver’s license or another form of identification. The MCSD deputy usually runs these identifications against police databases to determine whether the detained individuals can be arrested to collect unpaid fines and fees owed to the County.
25

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 26 of 88
67. In the experience of named Plaintiff Mrs. Tucker, who has been repeatedly stopped at the MCSD’s roadblocks, MCSD deputies do not follow a standard operating procedure in conducting these roadblocks. MCSD deputies have sometimes asked Mrs. Tucker to produce her driver’s license and proof of her insurance, but at other times they have only asked for her license. MCSD deputies have usually taken Mrs. Tucker’s license and checked it for unpaid fines, but sometimes the MCSD deputy running the roadblock has just glanced at her license and waved her through.
68. Traveling through the MCSD’s roadblocks can take 10 to 20 minutes per vehicle, even when MCSD deputies do nothing more than check identification. These delays are sometimes compounded when MCSD deputies conduct suspicionless searches of Black motorists, their passengers, and their vehicles during these stops.
69. The MCSD often fails to provide any advance notice, much less meaningful notice of its roadblocks. For example, a notice of planned roadblocks (the “Roadblock Notice”) was made public via posting on social media shortly before the filing of Plaintiffs’ initial Complaint. The Roadblock Notice stated that the MCSD “will have” a roadblock “at one or more of” of dozens of listed locations between January 19, 2017 and January 22, 2017.24 The Roadblock Notice was so overbroad that it effectively provided no notice at all. A copy of the Roadblock Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
70. For members of the Black community, the MCSD’s roadblocks are much more than an inconvenience. Passing through these unconstitutionally intrusive roadblocks is fraught
24 The Roadblock Notice refers to “checkpoints” rather than “roadblocks.” However, please note the MCSD uses the terms “roadblock” and “checkpoint” interchangeably when referring to the type of roadblocks described herein.
26

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 27 of 88
with the potential for harassment, intimidation, demeaning searches, baseless citations, and possibly even arrest and subsequent incarceration.
71. Black community members therefore go to great lengths to avoid the MCSD’s roadblocks. They rely on an informal system of warnings communicated by friends and family through social media, texts, and phone calls. Black individuals often change their travel and personal plans based on the presence of these roadblocks.
72. For example, one of the Class Representative Plaintiffs in this action, Mrs. Tucker, devotes a great deal of time and effort to finding out the locations of MCSD’s roadblocks. She uses phone calling trees, Facebook pages, smart phone apps, and texting lists to get news of the roadblocks. Although Mrs. Tucker has a valid license, registration, and insurance, she frequently rearranges her life to avoid the MCSD’s roadblocks, typically by cancelling her plans and not leaving the house to see family or friends.
73. As of the filing of Plaintiffs’ initial complaint, one private Facebook group page that regularly warns of roadblocks in Madison County (the “Facebook Warning Page”) had nearly 1,800 members, the vast majority of whom are Black. The Facebook Warning Page featured messages such as “Madison County is pulling people over on bikes and everything” and “Roadblock on maple by the tracks! They got their lights off.” According to posts made prior to the filing of Plaintiffs’ initial Complaint, the MCSD has set up roadblocks outside of churches, the Madison County Department of Human Services office (which issues food stamps), and fast food restaurants.
74. Many of the Class Representative Plaintiffs in this action—including Mrs. Manning, Mrs. Tucker, and Mrs. Thomas—have been repeatedly stopped at the MCSD’s roadblocks. One of the Class Representative Plaintiffs, Mr. Singleton, was stopped at the
27

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 28 of 88
MCSD’s roadblocks at least 20 times in the year preceding the filing of Plaintiffs’ initial Complaint.
1. The Primary Purpose of the MCSD’s System of Roadblocks Is to Target Black Motorists for Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
75. Under the Supreme Court’s decision in City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000), the constitutionality of a roadblock turns on its primary purpose. The primary purpose of the MCSD’s system of roadblocks is now and has always been to target Black motorists, their passengers, and their vehicles for unreasonable searches and seizures. The MCSD’s concentration of roadblocks in predominantly-Black areas, as well as at the entry and exit points of majority-Black apartment complexes, is compelling evidence of this patently unconstitutional primary purpose.
76. An additional or alternative primary purpose of the MCSD’s system of roadblocks is the sort of “general interest in crime control” held unconstitutional in Edmond. A notice of roadblock activity promulgated by the MCSD and attached hereto as Exhibit C (the Roadblock Notice) illustrates this impermissible purpose. The Roadblock Notice lists the locations of dozens of potential roadblocks and expressly states that the “purpose” of these roadblocks “will be to check for Driver’s licenses, warrants and whatever else we encounter” (emphasis added).
77. On information and belief, MCSD deputies often use roadblock stops as a means of looking for contraband. Deputies regularly question Black motorists and Black passengers at roadblock stops in an effort to gain probable cause for conducting searches based on the individuals’ expressions or answers, or the supposed odor of marijuana in the vehicle or on one of the detained individuals.
78. Another additional or alternative primary purpose of the MCSD’s system of roadblocks is to enrich the County by generating municipal revenue through the collection of
28

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 29 of 88
unpaid fees and fines from the County’s disempowered minority populations. This purpose is clearly impermissible under both the Fourth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
79. To the extent that the MCSD attempts to claim that the primary purpose of its roadblocks is to check for valid drivers’ licenses and up-to-date vehicle registrations, or for any other traffic safety purpose, any such stated purpose is plainly pretextual. The operation of roadblocks at the entry and exit points of majority-Black apartment complexes in quiet residential neighborhoods, rather than on heavily-trafficked open roadways or locations with a history of traffic hazards, clearly demonstrates that the primary purpose of the MCSD roadblocks is not traffic safety. The absence of such roadblocks in majority-white neighborhoods, where traffic safety is of equal importance, further lays bare the pretextual purpose of the MCSD’s roadblocks. Any claimed purpose of traffic safety is also belied by the fact that MCSD deputies regularly require passengers, as well as pedestrians passing by roadblocks, to produce identification and submit to searches, as discussed in paragraphs 80 through 89.
B. Suspicionless Searches and Seizures of Black Pedestrians 80. The MCSD also regularly engages in suspicionless stops of Black persons while traveling as pedestrians or while present within the curtilages of homes or the grounds or common areas of multi-unit residential apartment complexes. 81. The MCSD does not maintain data regarding stops that do not result in arrests or citations. However, the MCSD’s data does indicate that the vast majority of individuals arrested at pedestrian stops in Madison County are Black. Approximately 82% of arrests at pedestrian stops in Madison County between May and September of 2016 were of Black individuals.
29

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 30 of 88
82. One of the MCSD’s most flagrantly unconstitutional racially discriminatory policing tactics is its implementation of pedestrian “checkpoints.”
83. Frequently, the MCSD enforces semi-concealed pedestrian “checkpoints” concurrently with vehicular roadblocks at the sole operational entry and exit to majority-Black housing complexes. These “checkpoints” violate Black residents’ legitimate expectations of privacy in and around their own homes, and unconstitutionally restrict their freedom to leave and return to their homes unimpeded by government intrusion. In other words, a vehicular roadblock can at any time also serve as a pedestrian “checkpoint.” MCSD deputies have discretion to implement such pedestrian “checkpoints” when conducting vehicular roadblocks.
84. Because the MCSD typically enforces these pedestrian “checkpoints” at the same locations as its vehicular roadblocks, the MCSD’s pedestrian “checkpoints” are also concentrated in and around the predominantly Black neighborhoods of Madison County.
85. On information and belief, MCSD deputies do not establish pedestrian checkpoints in predominantly-white towns, residential neighborhoods or business districts.
30

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 31 of 88
86. Once an MCSD deputy stops a Black pedestrian at a “checkpoint,” the deputy typically requires the pedestrian provide a driver’s license or another form of identification. The MCSD deputy usually runs the pedestrian’s identification against police databases to determine whether the detained individual can be arrested to collect unpaid fines and fees. In addition, MCSD deputies often subject pedestrians passing through these “checkpoints” to demeaning and unconstitutional searches.
87. On information and belief, the purpose of these pedestrian “checkpoints” is to conduct a fishing expedition to find any possible basis, no matter how tenuous, for issuing citations to and/or arresting members of the Black community.
88. For example, in January 2017, one of the Class Representative Plaintiffs in this action—Mr. Smith—was arrested after being detained and illegally searched at a pedestrian “checkpoint” at the entrance to the predominantly-Black affordable housing complex where he resides. Mr. Smith was arrested after a check of his identification revealed that he had outstanding fines and fees.
89. There is clearly no constitutional basis for MCSD deputies to require Black pedestrians to pass through “checkpoints” as they are coming in and out of their homes or going about their daily activities. Forcing citizens of the United States to “show their papers” in this fashion runs afoul of the law as well as the most basic norms of decency in domestic policing.
90. The MCSD also engages in systematic illegal searches and seizures of Black pedestrians through “Jump Out” patrols that aim to take Black community members by surprise for suspicionless searches and seizures. These patrols are often conducted by plainclothes MCSD deputies driving unmarked vehicles.
31

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 32 of 88
91. The “Jump-Out” deputies often target groups of young Black men walking or riding bicycles together.
92. On information and belief, the “Jump Out” deputies select their targets purely on the basis of race and without any reasonable suspicion or probable cause; MCSD deputies do not target white residents for “Jump Out” patrols.
93. When the “Jump Out” deputies encounter their intended targets, the deputies rapidly exit their vehicles and proceed to demand identification and/or conduct unreasonable and extensive searches of every individual.
94. For example, approximately five years before the filing of Plaintiffs’ initial Complaint, named Plaintiff Mrs. Tucker witnessed two “Jump Out” patrol deputies tackle her teenage grandson to the ground. The deputies conducted an aggressive search of her grandson’s pockets. They left abruptly after finding nothing. Before the deputies descended upon Mrs. Tucker’s grandson, he had been fixing his brother’s bicycle in his front yard.
95. Often, the “Jump Out” deputies handcuff Black individuals while they conduct their searches, and threaten arrest and jail time for failing to comply with their demands. The “Jump Out” deputies also threaten onlookers and passers-by with arrest if they do not immediately leave the scene or return to their homes.
96. “Jump Out” patrols frequently take place outside of Black-owned businesses, causing customers to flee. On information and belief, the MCSD does not employ “Jump Out” patrols in the vicinity of white-owned businesses.
97. On information and belief, the MCSD uses these “Jump Out” patrols to deter customers from patronizing Black-owned businesses. The “Jump Out” patrols, together with the
32

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 33 of 88
MCSD’s other discriminatory policing tactics, have dramatically affected the profitability of Black-owned businesses.
C. Warrantless and Consentless Searches of the Homes of Black Residents 98. In the course of investigating potential offenses, searching for missing persons, or canvasing for individuals with outstanding arrest warrants, MCSD deputies frequently enter the homes of Black residents of Madison County without search warrants and without consent. 99. While they are in Black residents’ homes, MCSD deputies routinely engage in searches and seizures that further violate the Fourth Amendment. These unconstitutional practices include the detention and restraint of Black individuals not suspected of any wrongdoing, and are often accompanied by the use of force. 100. The following are illustrative examples of such misconduct:
a) In June 2016, MCSD Deputy Slade Moore, accompanied by several other white male MCSD deputies, forcibly entered the family home of Mr. and Mrs. Manning, two Plaintiffs in this action. Deputy Moore did not obtain Mrs. Manning’s consent to enter her home, nor did Deputy Moore have a search warrant. Deputy Moore attempted to coerce Mr. Manning to write a false witness statement against a neighbor’s boyfriend. When Mr. Manning refused, one of the deputies handcuffed him, choked him, and beat him in the back seat of an MCSD law enforcement vehicle until Mr. Manning finally relented and wrote the witness statement Deputy Moore demanded.
b) In March 2016, two MCSD deputies forcibly entered the home of Mr. Blackmon, one of the Class Representative Plaintiffs in this action. The MCSD deputies claimed they had a warrant for the arrest of one of Mr. Blackmon’s relatives, but the deputies refused to provide Mr. Blackmon with an opportunity to review the warrant. One of the deputies forced Mr. Blackmon to the ground at gunpoint, and handcuffed his wrists behind
33

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 34 of 88
his back. The deputies then proceeded to search Mr. Blackmon’s entire residence, ostensibly for the purpose of finding the person named in the warrant. The MCSD deputies searched inside Mr. Blackmon’s dresser drawers and other small closed compartments that could not possibly conceal an adult man.
c) In October 2015, MCSD deputies forcibly entered the home of Mr. Smith, a Class Representative Plaintiff in this action. The deputies did not provide Mr. Smith with a search warrant, but they claimed to be looking for a missing person. Without Mr. Smith’s consent, the deputies conducted a search of Mr. Smith’s home, including examining inside bureau drawers and other small closed compartments that could not reasonably contain a person. One of the deputies even woke up Mr. Smith’s daughter, who was only three years old at the time, to ask her if she knew anything about the missing person.
d) Several years ago, MCSD deputies stormed into a celebratory barbecue hosted by Mrs. Tucker, one of the Class Representative Plaintiffs in this action, at her home in Canton. Without a warrant or any reason for suspecting criminal activity, the MCSD deputies conducted searches of Mrs. Tucker’s guests, including by digging into their pockets. The MCSD deputies also got down on their hands and knees to search Mrs. Tucker’s patio. Finding nothing, they left without explanation.
101. It is common for MCSD deputies to harass Black residents while they are walking on the grounds of their apartment complexes, sitting on their patios, or spending time in their own yards, particularly after the sun has set. MCSD deputies often interrupt Black community members’ leisure and family time with demands for identification, intrusive questioning and suspicionless searches. MCSD deputies also regularly instruct Black community members to disperse or return indoors, and threaten arrest and jail time for noncompliance.
34

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 35 of 88
102. The MCSD’s unconstitutional policing practices in and around Black community members’ homes discourage Black residents from spending time outdoors, and from gathering outside with friends and family. These tactics effectively impose a “curfew” pursuant to which being outside of one’s own home after dark is reason enough to be detained or arrested. The MCSD’s hostile and unreasonable approach to policing the Black community violates Black residents’ reasonable expectations of privacy in their own homes, and greatly diminishes their sense of personal security.
103. On information and belief, the MCSD does not engage in these unconstitutional policing practices in the homes, yards, and neighborhoods of Madison County’s white residents. III. Race-Based Statistical Disparities in Policing Outcomes Provide Compelling
Evidence of the MCSD’s Policing Program 104. The MCSD’s Policing Program has resulted in stark racial disparities in policing outcomes that cannot be explained by alternative non-race-based factors. 105. For example, although only 38% of Madison County residents are Black,25 approximately 73% of arrests Madison County between May and September of 2016 were of Black individuals. Only 23% of arrests during this time period were of white individuals, even though Madison County is 57% white.26 These statistics suggest that the arrest rate for Black individuals is nearly five times the arrest rate for white individuals in Madison County.27
25 Based on 2010 Census data. See Quickfacts: Madison County, Mississippi, U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/28089,28 (last visited February 4, 2019). 26 Based on 2010 Census data. See Quickfacts: Madison County, Mississippi, U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/28089,28 (last visited January 30, 2019). 27 If the MCSD’s arrest rates were proportional to the population, then approximately 38% of arrests would be of Black individuals and approximately 57% of arrests would be of white individuals. The rate of arrests of Black individuals in Madison County is roughly double this expected percentage (73%, or approximately 2 times the percentage of Madison County’s population that is Black). The rate of arrests of white individuals is less than half the expected percentage (23%, or approximately 0.4 times the
35

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 36 of 88
106. Moreover, a disproportionate number of the MCSD’s arrests are made in majority-Black towns. For example, the majority-Black city of Canton represents approximately 14% of Madison County’s population, but accounted for nearly 47% of arrests made in Madison County between May and September 2016.
expected percentage). In other words, the arrest rate for Black individuals is nearly five times the arrest rate for white individuals in Madison County.
36

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 37 of 88
107. Because the MCSD targets Black communities for roadblocks and suspicionless pedestrian stops, the vast majority of individuals arrested at roadblocks and pedestrian stops in Madison County are Black. Between May and September 2016, 81% of arrests at roadblocks and 82% of arrests at pedestrian stops in Madison County were of Black individuals.
37

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 38 of 88
108. These dramatic racial disparities in policing outcomes have existed for years. A 2014 article in The Clarion-Ledger reported that while only 34% of Madison County’s
38

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 39 of 88
population was Black at the time, 78% of those arrested in Madison County were Black—among the largest disparity of the Mississippi counties cited.28
109. Similarly, an investigation conducted by USA Today revealed that the MCSD’s 2011-2012 arrest rates were 92.4 per 1000 for Black residents, as opposed to only 15.9 per 1000 for non-Black residents.29
110. These statistical disparities serve as compelling evidence that the MCSD’s Policing Program violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. IV. The MCSD’s Policing Program Is Longstanding and Deeply-Entrenched
111. The MCSD’s Policing Program is a deeply-entrenched policy, custom, and/or practice that has been in existence for years. The program has its roots in Madison County’s long history of unconstitutional, racially discriminatory policing practices.
112. During the Civil Rights era, Madison County Sheriff Billy Noble (“Sheriff Noble”) was known for his “infamous road blocks,”30 and his practice of “often arrest[ing] and jail[ing] black folk because he felt like it.”31
113. Billy Noble remained Sheriff through the 1980s. He and other Madison County officials were subject to a consent judgment regarding jail conditions in Madison County, including racially discriminatory practices.32 Sheriff Noble’s successor, Sheriff Jessie Hopkins,
28 Therese Apel, Mississippi Race, arrest rates examined, THE CLARION-LEDGER (Nov. 19, 2014), http://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2014/11/19/race-arrest-rates-examined/19307959/. 29 Brad Heath, Racial gap in U.S. arrest rates: ‘Staggering disparity’, USA TODAY (Nov. 18, 2014), http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/18/ferguson-black-arrest-rates/19043207/. 30 Hunter Gray, Ghosts of Madison County (Mississippi), BEARWTHOUTBORDERS (Oct. 7, 2011), https://lists.mayfirst.org/pipermail/bearwithoutborders/2011-October/004854.html. 31 Socrates Garrett, My Mississippi History, MISSISSIPPI LINK (April 27, 2006), 2006 WLNR 27688973. 32 See, e.g., Cooper v. Noble, 33 F.3d 540 (5th Cir. 1994).
39

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 40 of 88
was held in contempt for violations of this consent judgment,33 and complaints regarding the MCSD’s racially discriminatory practices in connection with its management of the Madison County Detention Center have continued to the present day.34
114. Sheriff Tucker’s immediate predecessor, Toby Trowbridge (“Sheriff Trowbridge”), served as the Sheriff of Madison County from 1999 until 2011. Sheriff Trowbridge was one of the key architects and most ardent enforcers of the Policing Program. Under his leadership, the MCSD executed thousands of unreasonable searches and seizures of Black motorists, pedestrians, homes, and vehicles.
115. Sheriff Trowbridge’s unconstitutional, racially discriminatory policing practices were widely known throughout Madison County.
116. In 2004, the community activist group Citizens Against Racial Profiling spoke out against Sheriff Trowbridge’s racial profiling and targeting of Black community members in Madison County.35
117. In 2006, a group of Canton residents (“Concerned Citizens of Canton”) presented the Madison County Board of Supervisors with a petition bearing 664 signatures demanding an end to “frequent roadblocks in the predominantly black neighborhoods,” “the excessive force and brutality administered by police officers,” and “racial profiling.”36
33 See id. at 545. 34 See, e.g., Letter Regarding Federal Inmates in Madison County Detention Center, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN DISTRICTS OF MISSISSIPPI (April 11, 2008), http://ms.fd.org/index_files/index_files/Madison%20Jail%20letter.pdf. 35 Adam Lynch, Crossing the Line?, JACKSON FREE PRESS (Sept. 8, 2004), http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2004/sep/08/crossing-the-line/. 36 Roadblocks questioned in Canton, THE CLARION-LEDGER (July 18, 2006) (2006 WLNR 25321982).
40

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 41 of 88
118. In July 2006, Canton resident Lauren Elaine attended a Madison County Board of Supervisors meeting on behalf of the Concerned Citizens of Canton. Sheriff Trowbridge was present at the meeting, but he refused to meet with representatives from the Concerned Citizens of Canton. Sheriff Trowbridge denied the use of racial profiling, and stated that the MCSD would continue using roadblocks as a policing practice.
119. On information and belief, the Madison County Board of Supervisors took no action to investigate or address the Concerned Citizens of Canton’s claims. However, for a period of time after the petition was submitted, there was a noticeable decrease in roadblocks in Canton, but a corresponding uptick in Flora roadblocks.37
120. According to a July 2007 article in The Clarion-Ledger, District 5 Supervisor Paul Griffin (“Supervisor Griffin”), who is Black, said that many people in Madison County were aware that the MCSD was perceived as targeting Black community members, and had tried to get Sheriff Trowbridge to meet with his critics.38 However, Supervisor Griffin stated that “[t]here is a limit to what the Board of Supervisors can do because the [S]heriff is elected by the people to do his job.”39
121. In October 2007, a group of Flora residents (“Concerned Citizens II of Flora”) claimed to have video evidence demonstrating that that the MCSD had been setting up roadblocks in predominantly Black neighborhoods, such as Magnolia Heights, while not doing
37 Elizabeth Crisp, Flora group targets Madison Co. deputies, THE CLARION-LEDGER (October 29, 2007) 2007 WLNR 27805955. 38 Is system fair?, THE CLARION-LEDGER (July 22, 2007) (2007 WLNR 27765629). 39 Id.
41

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 42 of 88
the same in predominantly white neighborhoods.40 The group demanded documentation concerning Sheriff Trowbridge’s roadblock policies and practices. Sheriff Trowbridge refused either to provide any such documentation or to meet with representatives of the Concerned Citizens II of Flora.41
122. According to a January 2008 article in the Madison County Journal, Sheriff Trowbridge “generally receive[d] very high marks from [the Madison County Board of Supervisors].”42 The article noted that Sheriff Trowbridge has “been the subject of complaints from African-Americans living in Canton and Flora who say he practices racial profiling.”
123. In November 2007, Sheriff Trowbridge denied charges of racial profiling at a meeting of the Madison County Board of Supervisors.43 Three white members of the Board of Supervisors expressed their support for Sheriff Trowbridge during the meeting. However, former District 4 Supervisor Karl Banks (“Supervisor Banks”), who is Black, expressed his disappointment at the way the Board of Supervisors had addressed the issue of racial profiling. Then-Supervisor Banks stated that he routinely fielded complaints about the MCSD, and said that Sheriff Trowbridge should work with people to change the department’s image. “The conversation today was about a feeling in the community. . . . I know, as an African American,
40 Muslim group could enter the fray in Flora, MADISON COUNTY JOURNAL (Oct. 25, 2007), http://www.onlinemadison.com/Content/NEWS/Local-News/Article/Muslim-group-could-enter-the-frayin-Flora/1/1/19402. 41 Id. 42 New supervisors take office Friday, MADISON COUNTY JOURNAL (Jan. 2, 2008), http://www.onlinemadison.com/Content/Default/Local-News/Article/New-supervisors-take-officeFriday/-3/1/19701. 43 Elizabeth Crisp, Racial profiling accusations thrown at Madison sheriff in board meeting, THE CLARION-LEDGER (Nov. 6, 2007), 2007 WLNR 27805274.
42

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 43 of 88
that there is a real feeling in the community that the [Sheriff’s] department is discriminating against people.” 44
124. None of the minutes for the Board of Supervisors’ meetings reference claims or discussions of racial profiling.45 However, minutes from the November 19, 2007 Board of Supervisors meeting indicates that the Board authorized Sheriff Trowbridge to use $50,000 in grant funds for “public safety checkpoints.”46 Because the MCSD uses the terms “roadblock” and “checkpoint” interchangeably, these “public safety checkpoints” may have encompassed the racially discriminatory roadblocks described herein.
125. The Clarion Ledger reported that of the 92 official MCSD roadblocks conducted in 2007, many were set up in areas that have higher concentrations of Black or Hispanic residents. 47 The Clarion Ledger also reported that more roadblocks were conducted in Canton and in unincorporated areas north of Canton than in any other area in 2007, and that roadblocks were often conducted in the same places multiple times throughout the year.48
126. In 2008, a number of civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Mississippi Immigrant Rights Alliance, and Citizens Against Racial Profiling, called
44 Id. 45 The Madison County Government’s website contains a functionality that allows the user to search an electronic archive of the Board of Supervisors’ meeting minutes by keyword. Keyword-searching this archive revealed no references to “racial profiling” or synonymous terms in the Board of Supervisors’ meeting minutes. See Board Minutes: Searching Minutes by Keyword, MADISON COUNTY MISSISSIPPI, http://www.madison-co.com/elected-offices/board-of-supervisors/boardminutes.php?search_type=keyword. 46 Minutes of the Board of Supervisors of Madison County, Mississippi (November 19, 2007), http://www.madison-co.com/images/admin/pdfs/465_47418_Minutes_11-19-07_(Final).pdf. 47 Elizabeth Crisp, A show of frustration, THE CLARION-LEDGER (March 28, 2008) (2008 WLNR 26594510). 48 Id.
43

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 44 of 88
for the resignation of Sheriff Trowbridge for unfairly targeting Blacks and Latinos through racial profiling and roadblocks.49 Once again, Sheriff Trowbridge denied engaging in racial profiling and refused to meet with his critics.50
127. On March 27, 2008, protestors conducted a march in opposition to Sheriff Trowbridge’s racial profiling practices.51 Protest organizer David Archie issued a press release stating that: “Over the years since the election of Toby Trowbridge as sheriff of Madison County, numerous individuals have brought forth claims of harassment, intimidation, discrimination and outright brutality by the Madison County sheriff’s department. . . . Racial profiling and deputy misconduct are widespread and well known.”52
128. In 2009, Sheriff Trowbridge expressed his opposition to a proposed bill to outlaw racial profiling in Mississippi. However, the police chiefs of two Madison County cities, Canton and Ridgeland, both testified that racial profiling is a problem in Mississippi.53 The Canton police chief is Black; the Ridgeland police chief is white.
129. From 2000 until January 2012, current Madison County Sheriff Tucker served as an MCSD deputy under Sheriff Trowbridge. In 2002, Sheriff Tucker became Captain of the MCSD’s Narcotics Division. Then-Deputy Tucker had full knowledge of the Policing Program,
49 Julie Straw, Groups Accuse Sheriff of Racial Profiling, WS NEWS NOW, http://www.msnewsnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=8068507. See also Julie Straw, Civil Liberties Groups Want Madison County Sheriff Gone, AMERICANS FOR LEGAL IMMIGRATION PAC (March 26, 2008), https://www.alipac.us/f12/ms-civil-liberties-groups-want-madison-county-sheriff-gone-102656-print/. 50 WS NEWS NOW, infra note 44. 51 Adam Lynch, Canton Police Arrest Protesters, JACKSON FREE PRESS (March 27, 2008), http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2008/mar/27/canton-police-arrest-protesters/. 52 Id. 53 Elizabeth Crisp, House panel considers bill to outlaw racial profiling, THE CLARION-LEDGER (Jan. 14, 2009) (2009 WLNR 19779141).
44

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 45 of 88
and he personally implemented many of the unconstitutional racially discriminatory policing practices that comprise the Policing Program.
130. For example, in approximately 2011, then-Deputy Tucker and other MCSD deputies stormed into the home of named Plaintiff Mr. Singleton just minutes after Deputy Tucker personally delivered a package to Mr. Singleton’s home. The package was addressed to a relative who did not reside with Mr. Singleton and was not at Mr. Singleton’s home at the time. Mr. Singleton’s brother-in-law, who was at Mr. Singleton’s home, picked up the package and brought it inside. As soon as he did so, Tucker and his team barged into Mr. Singleton’s home. They forced Mr. Singleton, his brother-in-law, and his sister to lay on the floor while they searched Mr. Singleton’s home. Mr. Singleton’s three-year-old son was present in the home at the time. When Mr. Singleton’s sister asked then-Deputy Tucker whether they had a search warrant, Tucker pointed to the box and said: “I don’t need a search warrant. That box is my search warrant.”
131. In 2011, then-Deputy Tucker ran for Sheriff. During his campaign, then-Deputy Tucker stated that he “want[ed] to maintain the quality of law enforcement that we have under Sheriff Trowbridge.”54 He also said: “[a]s Madison County Sheriff, I will continue the high level of law enforcement and justice Madison County residents expect and have enjoyed under Sheriff Toby Trowbridge.”55 On information and belief, these statements were coded promises to continue the Policing Program.
54 Lacey McLaughlin, Making Amends, JACKSON FREE PRESS, (Aug. 17, 2011), http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2011/aug/17/making-amends/. 55 Madison County Sheriff’s Deputy Captain Randy Tucker to Run for Madison County Sheriff, Y’ALL POLITICS, Jan. 19, 2011, http://www.yallpolitics.com/index.php/yp/post/ madison_county_sheriffs_deputy_captain_randy_tucker_to_run_for_madison_coun/.
45

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 46 of 88
132. On November 8, 2011, then-Deputy Tucker was elected Sheriff of Madison County. He took office in January 2012. V. Sheriff Tucker Has Adopted, Implemented, and Expanded the Policing Program
133. Upon taking office, Sheriff Tucker immediately adopted the Policing Program in its entirety. In a memo to all MCSD deputies and employees dated January 3, 2012, Sheriff Tucker stated that “[t]he policies and procedures under the administration of Sheriff Toby Trowbridge shall remain in place and effective as the policies and procedures for the administration of Sheriff Randy Tucker.”56
134. Since then, Sheriff Tucker has not only implemented the Policing Program but expanded its scope by, among other actions, enacting or maintaining a written roadblock policy that sanctions unconstitutional racially discriminatory roadblocks.
135. In essence, Sheriff Tucker has empowered MCSD deputies with enhanced authority and implicit encouragement to target the members of Madison County’s Black community for unreasonable searches and seizures.
136. One of the Class Representative Plaintiffs in this action, Mr. Blackmon, reports that the MCSD’s deputies have become even more disrespectful towards Black community members since Tucker became Sheriff. According to Mr. Blackmon, MCSD deputies now “terrorize the community like a gang would.”
56 Memo from Sheriff Tucker to all MCSD deputies and employees (Jan. 3, 2012). The memo stated that “[v]ariations to these policies and procedures may be made at the discretion of the Sheriff.” As discussed herein, Sheriff Tucker subsequently changed a few of Sheriff Trowbridge’s policies and procedures. On information and belief, these changes were made to implement, enforce, and expand the Policing Program.
46

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 47 of 88
A. Sheriff Tucker Has Enacted a Written Roadblock Policy That Sanctions Unconstitutional Racially Discriminatory Roadblocks
137. Sheriff Tucker has enacted or maintained a written policy (the General Roadblocks Policy) that expressly allows MCSD deputies to “conduct random roadblocks” without specifying any restrictions on how and when MCSD deputies may conduct these roadblocks.57
138. The General Roadblocks Policy fails to set forth any “explicit, neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers” as required under Supreme Court precedent.58 Notably, the policy does not require MCSD deputies to use race-neutral criteria in selecting locations for roadblocks.
139. In its entirety, the General Roadblocks Policy is only three sentences long. One of these sentences clarifies that the procedural safeguards that govern sobriety checkpoints (see below) do not apply to roadblocks. The complete text of the General Roadblocks Policy is as follows:
a. This section allows officers to conduct random roadblocks for all traffic violations, escapees or wanted subjects.
b. The requirements of this section shall not be confused with the policy set out above on the methods to be used for sobriety checkpoints.
c. All Deputies may conduct general roadblocks when necessary to check for traffic violations, escapees, or wanted subjects upon the public streets, highways and right-of-ways within this county.
57 General Roadblocks, in POLICY AND PROCEDURE, Office of the Sheriff, Madison County, Mississippi, attached hereto as Exhibit B. 58 City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 49 (2000) (quoting Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979)).
47

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 48 of 88
140. In stark contrast to his bare-bones General Roadblocks Policy, Sheriff Tucker’s policy on “sobriety checkpoints” (the “Sobriety Checkpoint Policy”) is carefully-crafted and establishes clear limits on the authority of MCSD deputies to establish such checkpoints. Among other procedural safeguards, the Sobriety Checkpoint Policy requires MCSD deputies to:
 “[s]atisfy federal, state and local requirements” in establishing and conducting sobriety checkpoints;
 “[c]onduct [sobriety] checkpoints with a minimal amount of intrusion or motorist inconvenience”;
 use “[s]pecial care” to “warn approaching motorist[s] of the sobriety checkpoint”;  specify objective criteria for selecting which motorists to stop at any given
sobriety checkpoint; and  specify the “dialogue and educational material to be used by [sobriety] checkpoint
[p]ersonnel.”59
A copy of this Sobriety Checkpoint Policy is attached as Exhibit D. 141. On information and belief, Sheriff Tucker’s different approaches to sobriety
checkpoints and “general” roadblocks reflect his racially discriminatory approach to policing the residents of Madison County. The Sobriety Checkpoint Policy is designed to protect the rights of white residents of Madison County, who may be stopped at sobriety checkpoints but who almost never encounter general roadblocks. The General Roadblocks Policy, on the other hand, is structured to give MCSD deputies complete authority to establish roadblocks targeting Black residents as and when they see fit.
59 Sobriety Checkpoint Guidelines, in POLICY AND PROCEDURE, Office of the Sheriff, Madison County, Mississippi.
48

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 49 of 88
142. Under color of this unconstitutionally vague and permissive General Roadblock Policy, and with the tacit support of Sheriff Tucker, MCSD deputies regularly establish illegal roadblocks to harass Black individuals in Madison County with unconstitutional searches and seizures.
143. To the extent Defendants contend that the General Roadblocks Policy is constitutional, which it is plainly not, the MCSD has a pattern or practice of noncompliance with its own policy. As discussed herein, the MCSD conducts roadblocks for impermissible purposes unrelated to the need to “check for traffic violations, escapees, or wanted subjects.”
144. Insofar as Defendants claim that the roadblocks complained of herein are established pursuant to the Sobriety Checkpoint Policy, the MCSD has a pattern and practice of noncompliance with this policy as well. VI. Sheriff Tucker Has Been Deliberately Indifferent to the Constitutional Violations
Caused by the Policing Program 145. Sheriff Tucker has long known of the constitutional violations suffered by the Black residents of Madison County as a result of the Policing Program. On information and belief, these harms are in fact the intended purpose and result of Sheriff Tucker’s own policies, practices, and customs. 146. Sheriff Tucker has been deliberately indifferent to the constitutional violations caused by the Policing Program. Among other actions and inactions, he has: (1) on information and belief, failed to investigate a Black MCSD deputy’s complaint of racially discriminatory policing practices and the unjustified use of physical force against Black community members; (2) hired a deputy with a documented history of misconduct involving the excessive use of force; (3) chosen not to establish any rules or regulations prohibiting racial bias in policing; (4) decided not to maintain basic data on the MCSD’s policing practices, including the differential impact of
49

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 50 of 88
the MCSD’s policing on Black communities; and (5) failed to establish or maintain objective or reliable procedures for supervision or discipline of deputies, or for investigation of civilian complaints..
A. On Information and Belief, Sheriff Tucker Failed to Investigate an MCSD Deputy’s Claim of Unconstitutional Racially Discriminatory Policing Practices
147. In or around February 2013, one of Sheriff Tucker’s own deputies, Robert Gibson, raised concerns about the MCSD’s pattern of targeting the Black residents of Madison County for searches and seizures at roadblocks, as well as the MCSD’s unjustified use of physical force against Black community members.
148. On information and belief, Sheriff Tucker failed to conduct any investigation into Mr. Gibson’s claims of unconstitutional racially discriminatory policing practices. Instead, Sheriff Tucker terminated Mr. Gibson’s employment in February 2013.
149. In August 2016, Mr. Gibson filed suit against the MCSD asserting claims of racial discrimination and retaliation.60
150. According to the complaint, Mr. Gibson specifically expressed his “concerns about racially discriminatory practices that affected both the [MCSD] employees and the community.” Mr. Gibson addressed what he found to be a pattern of “white officers using excessive force and beating black individuals” as well as the MCSD’s practice of “setting up roadblocks primarily in the minority neighborhoods.”61
60 Jimmie E. Gates, Former Madison deputy files discrimination lawsuit, THE CLARION-LEDGER, (Aug. 31, 2016), http://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2016/08/31/former-madison-deputy-filesdiscrimination-lawsuit/89650260/; see also Second Amended Complaint, Gibson v. Madison County at ¶¶ 37-39, No. 16 Civ. 633 (S.D. Miss. Oct. 25, 2016). 61 See Second Amended Complaint, Gibson v. Madison County at ¶¶ 37-39, No. 16 Civ. 633 (S.D. Miss. Oct. 25, 2016). Mr. Gibson’s suit was brought following a determination by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that “the evidence obtained in the investigation established reasonable cause to
50

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 51 of 88
B. Sheriff Tucker Hired a Deputy with a Documented History of Misconduct Involving the Excessive Use of Force
151. Sheriff Tucker not only fails to screen his deputies, but he has on at least one occasion intentionally hired a deputy with a documented history of misconduct involving the excessive use of force.
152. In 1997, Slade Moore, an officer with the Jackson Police Department, shoved an arrestee’s face into a concrete floor, pressed his fingers into the arrestee’s eyes, and rolled the arrestee’s face back and forth across the concrete floor.62
153. The arrestee subsequently sued the City of Jackson. The Mississippi Court of Appeals held that the City of Jackson was not immune from suit because of the egregious and unreasonable nature of Deputy Moore’s conduct, and awarded the arrestee $25,000 in damages.63
154. The Jackson Police Department fired Moore for his “use of excessive force in arresting” the plaintiff, as well as his “history of using excessive force in making arrests.”64
155. Despite Moore’s record of misconduct, Sheriff Tucker hired Moore as an MCSD deputy. Deputy Moore continues to serve as a member of the MCSD’s force.
156. On information and belief, Deputy Moore has played an integral role in implementing the MCSD’s Policing Program.
believe that [Mr. Gibson] was discriminated against in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as amended”; that “[c]reditable evidence disclosed that the [MCSD’s] promotional policy and practices were not uniformly applied to both races and were subjective at best”; and that “[t]he evidence also showed that shortly after [Mr. Gibson’s] protest, he was singled out for criticism and discharged.” See id. at Ex. B (EEOC Determination). 62 City of Jackson v. Calcote, 910 So.2d 1103, 1107-1108 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005). 63 Calcote, 910 So.2d at 1107-1108, 1113. 64 City of Jackson v. Moore, 97 So. 3d 1238, 1239-40 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012).
51

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 52 of 88
C. Sheriff Tucker Has Not Established any Rules or Regulations Prohibiting Racial Bias in Policing
157. For years, Sheriff Tucker and the MCSD have fielded complaints of racial
profiling.
158. Nevertheless, Sheriff Tucker has failed to establish any rules or regulations prohibiting racial bias in policing.65
159. Sheriff Tucker does not train his deputies to avoid racial bias in their policing
practices; to the contrary, the Policing Program authorizes MCSD personnel to target Black
community members.
D. The MCSD Maintains Minimal Data And Does Not Track Racial Disparities In Policing
160. Sheriff Tucker fails to maintain adequate data on the MCSD’s policing practices66 or aggregated crime statistics for municipalities in Madison County.67
161. Sheriff Tucker does not require MCSD deputies to keep records of the number of
individuals stopped at roadblocks, the number of arrests made at each roadblock, or the race, gender, and/or age of each individual stopped and/or arrested at each roadblock. 68
65 See ACLU Public Records Request (Sept. 15, 2016) (requesting “[a]ll policies, protocols, or training material describing how to address issues of racial bias in policing.”); see also Letter from Sheriff Tucker to the ACLU (Oct. 31, 2016) (stating that “[n]o public records exist in response to this subparagraph [requesting such policies].”). 66 See ACLU Public Records Request (Sept. 15, 2016) (requesting data on the MCSD’s roadblocks, traffic stops, and stop and frisk searches); see also Letter from Sheriff Tucker to the ACLU (Oct. 31, 2016). 67 See ACLU Public Records Request (Mar. 3, 2017) (requesting, inter alia, “[a]ll records regarding Madison County crime rates, including but not limited to . . . the locations (including cities or neighborhood[s]) considered to be high crime areas”); see also Letter from Sheriff Tucker to the ACLU (March 14, 2017) (stating that the “only records the Madison County Sheriff’s Department has regarding crime rates or crime statistics” are the Uniform Crime Reports as submitted to the Federal Bureau of Investigation). 68 Letter from Sheriff Tucker to the ACLU (Oct. 31, 2016) (stating that “[n]o public records exist” with respect to the MCSD’s roadblocks and/or checkpoints documenting their number, frequency, location,
52

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 53 of 88
162. Sheriff Tucker also does not require MCSD deputies to document the race of persons stopped or searched as pedestrians or at traffic stops.69 Moreover, Sheriff Tucker does not track aggregated crime statistics by town or neighborhood.70 For example, Sheriff Tucker does not maintain statistics on the number of arrests made in majority-Black Canton as compared to majority-white Madison in any given time period.
163. On information and belief, Sheriff Tucker has chosen not to keep such data, statistics and records because they would collectively provide unmistakable proof of the existence and widespread implementation of the MCSD’s Policing Program. VII. The Board of Supervisors Has Been Deliberately Indifferent to the Constitutional
Violations Caused by the Policing Program
and/or duration; the number of stops initiated; the race, gender, and/or age of each individual stopped; the race, gender, and/or age of each individual whose driver’s license was run against the MCSD’s databases; the number of searches resulting in citations, and the reasons for these citations; the race, gender, and/or age of each individual cited; the number of arrests made and for what charges; or the race, gender, and/or age of each individual arrested.). 69 Letter from Sheriff Tucker to the ACLU (Oct. 31, 2016) (stating that “[n]o public records exist” with respect to traffic stops conducted; traffic tickets issued at these stops; traffic stops which resulted in the search of the driver’s vehicle; traffic stop searches which resulted in the recovery of contraband; and/or traffic stops which resulted in arrests.); see also id. (stating that “[n]o public records exist” with respect to stops, frisks, and/or searches conducted by MCSD deputies, including the race, gender, and/or age of the individual(s) stopped; the basis for the stop; whether any search was conducted and the basis for the search; and/or whether the stop resulted in an arrest or citation, and the basis for this arrest or citation). 70 See supra note 65.
53

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 54 of 88
164. The Board of Supervisors serves as “the chief policy making and administrative body” of Madison County. By its own description, the Board of Supervisors is “the one body which supervises almost everything that goes on in county government.”71
165. The Board of Supervisors is comprised of five elected Supervisors, one from each of the five districts in Madison County. “[T]ogether the members set policy” for Madison County and “are expected to look after the good of the county as a whole.” 72
166. For at least a decade, the Madison County Board of Supervisors has known that the MCSD systematically targets the Black community for unreasonable searches and seizures:
a) In 2006, the Concerned Citizens of Canton presented the Board of Supervisors with a petition bearing 664 signatures demanding an end to “frequent roadblocks in the predominantly black neighborhoods,” “the excessive force and brutality administered by police officers,” and “racial profiling.”73
b) In July 2006, representatives of the Concerned Citizens of Canton attended a Board of Supervisors meeting to raise these concerns. Sheriff Trowbridge was present at the meeting but refused to meet with the Concerned Citizens of Canton. Significantly, Sheriff Trowbridge stated that the MCSD would not end the use of roadblocks. 74
71 Board of Supervisors, Madison County, Mississippi, http://madison-co.com/elected-offices/board-ofsupervisors. 72 Id. 73 Sylvain Metz, Roadblocks questioned in Canton, THE CLARION-LEDGER (July 18, 2006), 2006 WLNR 25321982. 74 Id.
54

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 55 of 88
c) In November 2007, Sheriff Trowbridge addressed charges of racial profiling during a Board of Supervisors meeting.75 He claimed that the MCSD did not engage in racial profiling.76
167. The Board of Supervisors is also presumed to have knowledge of the allegations of Mr. Gibson’s complaint, and the commonly-known harms suffered by the Black residents of Madison County as a result of these practices.77
168. Although the Board of Supervisors has been aware of a pattern of constitutional violations suffered by the Black residents of Madison County, the Board of Supervisors has been deliberately indifferent to these violations. The Board of Supervisors has failed to investigate the MCSD’s racially discriminatory policing practices and/or its pattern of conducting unreasonable searches and seizures, and has also failed to require the MCSD to take any actions to: (a) establish policies that prohibit racially discriminatory policing practices and/or unreasonable searches and seizures; (b) screen, train, and supervise MCSD deputies, employees, and agents to prevent MCSD personnel from employing unconstitutional racially discriminatory policing practices and/or conducting unreasonable searches and seizures; (c) monitor MCSD deputies, employees, and agents to ensure that their policing practices comply with constitutional requirements; and/or (d) discipline MCSD deputies, employees, and agents who employ racially discriminatory policing practices and/or conduct unreasonable searches and seizures.
75 “Madison sheriff denies racial discrimination charges during supervisors’ meeting,” AP Alert (November 6, 2007). 76 Crisp, supra note 43. 77 See supra ¶¶ 147 through 150.
55

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 56 of 88
169. This “policy of inaction” by the Madison County Board of Supervisors is the functional equivalent of a decision by Madison County itself to violate the Constitution. By failing to take any steps to investigate or remedy the MCSD’s systematic targeting of Black residents for unreasonable searches and seizures, the Board of Supervisors has implicitly sanctioned and endorsed the Policing Program. VIII. The Policing Program Has Caused Thousands of Constitutional Violations
170. The MCSD’s systematic targeting of Black community members for unreasonable searches and seizures has resulted in thousands of violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The Policing Program is “unquestionably . . . the moving force” behind these constitutional violations within the meaning of the Supreme Court’s decision in Monell, 436 U.S. 658.
171. Sheriff Tucker has adopted, enforced, and expanded the Policing Program. Madison County, by and through its Board of Supervisors, has been deliberately indifferent to the pattern of constitutional violations that the Policing Program has caused. There can be no question that the Policing Program is the official—but unwritten—policy, practice, and/or custom of both Sheriff Tucker and Madison County.
172. Without the declaratory and injunctive relief sought herein, thousands of Black individuals in Madison County will continue to be subjected to unconstitutional racially discriminatory policing practices pursuant to the Policing Program.
ALLEGATIONS OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFFS 173. Each of the Class Representative Plaintiffs has suffered egregious constitutional violations as a direct result of the MCSD’s Policing Program. Most of the Class Representative Plaintiffs have been targeted by the MCSD for unreasonable race-based searches and seizures at multiple times and in multiple ways.
56

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 57 of 88
174. The events described below demonstrate that the Policing Program is pervasive, widespread, and has the force of law. These events also illustrate the extremely high likelihood that the Class Representative Plaintiffs will be subject to unreasonable race-based searches and seizures by the MCSD in the future.
175. Class Representative Plaintiffs assert, however, that only those events occurring on May 8, 2014 or later entitle them to legal and equitable relief. I. Latoya Brown
176. Ms. Brown is a 29-year-old Black woman who has spent nearly her entire life in Canton, Mississippi. In November 2018, she moved to Dallas, Texas where she lives with named Plaintiff Steven Smith and their four daughters. Ms. Brown intends to make regular visits to Madison County because her mother, siblings, and nieces and nephew all live in Canton, and she intends to ultimately move back. Ms. Brown is currently a stay-at-home mother.
177. On or after May 8, 2014, Ms. Brown was stopped repeatedly at the MCSD’s pedestrian “checkpoints” and roadblocks. She was also once detained during a suspicionless pedestrian stop. Ms. Brown brings claims as a representative of both the Roadblock Class and the Pedestrian Stop Class.
A. Pedestrian Stop Class Claims Of Latoya Brown 178. Ms. Brown has been detained at the MCSD’s pedestrian “checkpoints” while entering and exiting her own home on at least three occasions since May 8, 2014. The “checkpoints” have typically been located at the only access point to her housing complex. 179. Each time Ms. Brown has been stopped, she has been required to provide the MCSD deputy with her identification.
57

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 58 of 88
180. In the summer of 2014, an MCSD deputy detained Ms. Brown while she was walking on the sidewalk in or around the predominantly-Black affordable housing complex where she resides. Ms. Brown was on her way to work at the time.
181. The MCSD deputy had no reasonable suspicion, but demanded to see Ms. Brown’s identification and find out where she was going.
182. The deputy detained Ms. Brown for approximately ten minutes before allowing her to proceed.
183. Ms. Brown is at risk that the MCSD’s deputies will again stop her without reasonable suspicion at a pedestrian “checkpoint” or on the street.
B. Roadblock Class Claims Of Latoya Brown 184. On or after May 8, 2014, Ms. Brown was stopped at the MCSD’s roadblocks multiple times while she was a passenger in someone else’s vehicle. 185. At each roadblock stop, Ms. Brown has been required to provide the MCSD deputy with her identification. 186. Ms. Brown is at risk that the MCSD’s deputies will again stop her at a roadblock in violation of her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. II. Lawrence Blackmon 187. Mr. Blackmon is a 33-year-old Black man who has resided in Canton, Mississippi since 1998. Mr. Blackmon recently completed a Masters of Law program at George Washington University Law School in Washington D.C., and is now a practicing attorney based out of a Canton office. 188. Mr. Blackmon brings claims as a representative of the Roadblock Class.
58

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 59 of 88
A. Roadblock Class Claims Of Lawrence Blackmon 189. On or after May 8, 2014, Mr. Blackmon was stopped at roadblocks multiple times near his home in Canton. 190. In Mr. Blackmon’s experience, MCSD deputies sometimes stop all vehicles passing through a roadblock. At other times, MCSD deputies only stop certain vehicles. 191. Mr. Blackmon travels frequently throughout Canton, which is divided by railroad tracks. On one-side of the tracks is the impoverished and majority-Black section of Canton; on the other side is the more affluent section of Canton where most of Canton’s white citizens live. Mr. Blackmon has never seen a roadblock on the “other side of the tracks” in Canton. 192. As a Canton resident, Mr. Blackmon is at risk that the MCSD’s deputies will again stop him at a roadblock in violation of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. B. Additional Allegations Of MCSD Misconduct 193. In addition to the incidents described above, Mr. Blackmon has been held at gunpoint by MCSD deputies while they conducted a search of his home. 194. In late 2015, Mr. Blackmon was at his home in Canton when he heard a banging at the front door. He opened the door to find two MCSD deputies who claimed to have a warrant for the arrest of one of Mr. Blackmon’s relatives. Mr. Blackmon’s cousin was not in the house at the time. 195. Mr. Blackmon asked the deputies to show him the warrant. When the deputies refused to provide him with an opportunity to review the warrant, Mr. Blackmon did not allow the deputies to enter. 196. The MCSD deputies then began kicking on the door and shouted that if Mr. Blackmon did not let them in, they would break down the door. Concerned that the MCSD
59

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 60 of 88
deputies would damage the house, Mr. Blackmon opened the door. The door is still dented from the deputies’ efforts to kick it in.
197. The two MCSD deputies entered Mr. Blackmon’s home with their weapons drawn. One deputy immediately pointed his gun at Mr. Blackmon, forced Mr. Blackmon to the ground, and handcuffed his wrists behind his back.
198. The MCSD deputies then proceeded to search Mr. Blackmon’s entire residence, ostensibly for the purpose of finding Mr. Blackmon’s relative. The MCSD deputies searched inside dresser drawers and other closed compartments that could not possibly conceal an adult man.
199. Finding nothing, the deputies attempted to uncuff Mr. Blackmon. However, they could not release him because they did not have the correct key for the handcuffs. The deputies then had to call another deputy to locate the key. Mr. Blackmon remained handcuffed for an additional fifteen minutes until the deputies obtained the proper key to unlock the handcuffs.
200. Eventually, the deputies uncuffed Mr. Blackmon and left his home. 201. Mr. Blackmon does not assert claims arising from the incident described immediately above. Instead, Mr. Blackmon brings the claims set forth in paragraphs 189 through 192 above on behalf of the Roadblock Class. However, the events described immediately above illustrate the high likelihood that Mr. Blackmon will be subject to unreasonable race-based searches and seizures by the MCSD in the future. III. Khadafy Manning 202. Khadafy Manning lives in Canton, Mississippi. Mr. Manning is 37 years old. He suffers from a painful nerve condition that makes it difficult for him to walk without a cane. 203. Mr. Manning brings claims as a representative of the Pedestrian Stop Class. In addition, Mr. Manning brings individual claims for damages in connection with Defendants’
60

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 61 of 88
egregious violations of his constitutional rights, as set forth in paragraphs 256 through 280 below.
A. Pedestrian Stop Class Claims Of Khadafy Manning 204. On February 14, 2017, a deputy threatened Mr. Manning while Mr. Manning was talking with a neighbor in the parking lot of his family’s apartment complex. The deputy told Mr. Manning that he “knew” Mr. Manning had been “causing trouble” by “having people come around here asking questions.” 205. The deputy handcuffed Mr. Manning and restrained him in the backseat of the deputy’s vehicle. The deputy then searched Mr. Manning’s vehicle, which was parked in the lot. Finding nothing objectionable in the vehicle, the deputy charged Mr. Manning with driving while his license was suspended. IV. Nick Singleton 206. Nick Singleton is a 37-year-old Black man who has lived in Canton, Mississippi since 2004. Mr. Singleton works as a field service technician for a telecommunications company. He is the father of two young boys. 207. Mr. Singleton brings claims as a representative of the Roadblock Class. A. Roadblock Class Claims Of Nick Singleton 208. Mr. Singleton lives on a quiet residential street in a majority-Black neighborhood in Canton. MCSD deputies regularly establish roadblocks on the intersection right outside of his home, particularly on holidays. 209. In the year preceding the filing of Plaintiffs’ initial Complaint, Mr. Singleton was stopped at the MCSD’s roadblocks a minimum of 20 times. He has been detained at dozens of roadblocks without reasonable suspicion since May 8, 2014.
61

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 62 of 88
210. On numerous occasions he has seen MCSD deputies set up a roadblock at one location and then move it down the street to a different corner. Mr. Singleton has often been required to show his license and insurance to the same MCSD deputy twice in the same day while driving through these “roving” roadblocks.
211. Mr. Singleton often spends time in majority-white areas of Madison County. He has never seen a roadblock in these predominantly white neighborhoods.
212. Mr. Singleton is at risk that the MCSD’s deputies will again stop him at a roadblock in violation of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
B. Additional Allegations Of MCSD Misconduct 213. In addition to the incidents described above, in approximately 2011, Mr. Singleton was subjected to a warrantless and consentless home search by then-Deputy Tucker and other MCSD deputies just minutes after Deputy Tucker personally delivered a package to Mr. Singleton’s home. The package was addressed to a relative who did not reside with Mr. Singleton. As soon as Mr. Singleton’s brother-in-law picked up the package and brought it inside, a team of MCSD deputies—including then-Deputy Tucker—stormed into Mr. Singleton’s home. They forced Mr. Singleton, his brother-in-law, and his sister to lay on the floor while they searched the family home. Mr. Singleton’s son, who was then only three years old, was present in the home at the time. When Mr. Singleton’s sister asked then-Deputy Tucker whether they had a search warrant, Tucker pointed to the box and said: “I don’t need a search warrant. That box is my search warrant.” 214. The events described immediately above exemplify Defendants’ pervasive culture of civil rights violations and illustrate the high likelihood that Mr. Singleton will be subject to unreasonable race-based searches and seizures by the MCSD in the future. However, Mr.
62

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 63 of 88
Singleton does not assert claims arising from this incident. Instead, Mr. Singleton brings the claims set forth in paragraphs 208 through 212 above on behalf of the Roadblock Class. V. Steven Smith
215. Mr. Smith is a 29-year-old Black man who has spent nearly his entire life in Canton, Mississippi. Last year he moved to Dallas, Texas where he lives with named Plaintiff Latoya Brown and their four young daughters. Since moving to Dallas, Mr. Smith has continued to travel back to Madison County. He intends to continue to do so regularly to visit family and friends and eventually move back. Mr. Smith currently works at a manufacturing facility.
216. In 2017, Mr. Smith was arrested and incarcerated following a suspicionless stop at a pedestrian “checkpoint” outside of his own apartment complex. He brings claims as a representative of the Pedestrian Stop Class.
A. Pedestrian Stop Class Claims Of Steven Smith 217. In January 2017, Mr. Smith was stopped at a pedestrian “checkpoint” as he was walking into the predominantly-Black affordable housing complex where he resides. 218. The MCSD deputies demanded to see Mr. Smith’s identification, and searched his person. On information and belief, the deputies had no reasonable suspicion or probable cause to search him. 219. Mr. Smith was arrested after a check of his identification revealed that he had overdue fines and court fees. Because he could not afford to pay the County, Mr. Smith was subsequently incarcerated for 29 days at the Madison County Detention Center. 220. During this time, Mr. Smith could not go to work. The lost income was an economic hardship for his family, particularly because his partner, named Plaintiff Ms. Brown, is a stay-at-home mother who cares for their young daughters.
63

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 64 of 88
221. Mr. Smith is at risk that the MCSD’s deputies will again stop him at a pedestrian “checkpoint” without reasonable suspicion.
B. Additional Allegations Of MCSD Misconduct 222. In addition to the incident described above, Mr. Smith has also been subject to a warrantless and suspicionless search of his home by the MCSD. 223. On the evening of October 31, 2015, two MCSD deputies came to Mr. Smith’s door after midnight and demanded to be let inside. The deputies claimed they were searching for a missing person, but they did not provide Mr. Smith with a warrant. Mr. Smith told the deputies that they did not have his permission to enter his home. Over Mr. Smith’s objections, the deputies pushed right past Mr. Smith and proceeded to search his apartment. The deputies conducted a thorough search of Mr. Smith’s home, including examining inside bureau drawers and other small closed compartments that could not reasonably contain a person. One of the deputies even woke up Mr. Smith’s daughter, who was only three years old at the time, to ask her if she knew anything about the missing person. 224. Mr. Smith does not assert claims arising from the incident described immediately above. Instead, Mr. Smith brings the claims set forth in paragraphs 217 through 221 above on behalf of the Pedestrian Stop Class. However, the events described immediately above illustrate the high likelihood that Mr. Smith will be subject to unreasonable race-based searches and seizures by the MCSD in the future. VI. Bessie Thomas 225. Mrs. Thomas is a 60-year-old Black woman who has lived in Canton, Mississippi for the last five decades. Mrs. Thomas serves as a minister at two local churches, and she is involved in taking care of her young grandchildren. For three years, Mrs. Thomas operated a corner store in Canton.
64

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 65 of 88
226. Ms. Thomas brings claims as a representative of the Roadblock Class. A. Roadblock Class Claims of Bessie Thomas 227. On or after May 8, 2014, Mrs. Thomas has been detained at roadblocks in Canton a number of times. 228. In Mrs. Thomas’s experience, “the roadblocks end where the white people start” at the east end of Canton. Mrs. Thomas has frequently encountered roadblocks on King Ranch Road, a predominantly-Black area. 229. Mrs. Thomas feels demeaned and degraded every time she has to pass through a roadblock because she believes that this is something only Black residents of Madison County are forced to do. 230. Mrs. Thomas is at risk that the MCSD’s deputies will again stop her at a roadblock in violation of her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. B. Additional Allegations Of MCSD Misconduct 231. In Mrs. Thomas’s experience, MCSD deputies inflict violence rather than protect Black community members from violence. On several occasions, Mrs. Thomas called the MCSD for help after break-ins at her corner store in which thieves took almost all of her inventory. Following a break-in that took place in October 2016, one MCSD deputy told Mrs. Thomas: “If they break in, just shoot them.” Mrs. Thomas ultimately had no choice but to shut down the store later that year. 232. In addition, several years ago, Mrs. Thomas was sitting outside her home, under the carport, when two MCSD deputies pulled in, ran right past her and began kicking in the door to the carport, which was unlocked. Mrs. Thomas attempted to ask the deputies why they were there, but they continued to kick in the door until the door frame split apart and the door opened.
65

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 66 of 88
The MCSD deputies then barged into Mrs. Thomas’s home and arrested her son. The deputies never showed Mrs. Thomas a warrant.
233. The entire length of the frame of Mrs. Thomas’s carport door still remains cracked as a result of the MCSD’s forcible entry, despite attempts to repair it.
234. Ms. Thomas does not assert claims arising from the incidents described immediately above. Instead, Ms. Thomas brings the claims set forth in paragraphs 227 through 230 above on behalf of the Roadblock Class. The events described immediately above, however, are illustrative of the MCSD’s pervasive pattern of civil rights violations against Madison County’s Black community. VII. Betty Jean Williams Tucker
235. Mrs. Tucker is a 64-year-old Black woman who was born, raised, and currently resides in Canton, Mississippi. For over a decade, Mrs. Tucker worked as a welder in a Canton manufacturing warehouse. She has five children, twelve grandchildren, and three great grandchildren. Mrs. Tucker is among the longest-lived residents in her Canton neighborhood.
236. Ms. Thomas brings claims as a representative of the Roadblock Class. A. Roadblock Class Claims Of Betty Jean Williams Tucker 237. Mrs. Tucker has a valid license, registration, and insurance. Nevertheless, because of her prior experiences with the MCSD, she devotes a great deal of time and effort to finding out the locations of the MCSD’s roadblocks through phone calling trees, Facebook pages, smart phone apps, and texting lists. Mrs. Tucker often rearranges her life to avoid the MCSD’s roadblocks, typically by cancelling her plans and not leaving the house to see family or friends. 238. Despite these extensive efforts, Mrs. Tucker was still subjected to two roadblock stops between approximately May 2015 and May 2017. During both stops, Mrs. Tucker was required to provide her license and her passengers were required to provide their identifications
66

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 67 of 88
before the deputies allowed Mrs. Tucker and her passengers to proceed. Each stop delayed her by approximately ten minutes.
239. In Mrs. Tucker’s decades of living and traveling in Madison County, she has rarely—if ever—seen a roadblock in a predominantly-white neighborhood. She has also found that roadblocks typically take place on low-traffic streets where accidents rarely occur. She has also observed a pattern of increased roadblock activity during major events in the Black community, such as Martin Luther King Jr. weekend. Mrs. Tucker feels that the MCSD’s roadblocks have become more frequent since Randy Tucker became Sheriff.
240. Mrs. Tucker is at risk that the MCSD’s deputies will again stop her at a roadblock in violation of her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
B. Additional Allegations Of MCSD Misconduct 241. In addition to the incidents described above, several years ago, Mrs. Tucker was hosting a celebratory barbeque when two plainclothes deputies pulled up in an unmarked vehicle. Without a warrant or Mrs. Tucker’s consent, the deputies walked right into Mrs. Tucker’s yard and began searching every person at the party, right down to the contents of their pockets. Finding nothing, the MCSD deputies also got down on their hands and knees to search Mrs. Tucker’s patio. They eventually left without any explanation. 242. Also several years ago, Mrs. Tucker was in her front yard when she saw a “Jump Out” patrol target her teenage grandson, who lived across the street. Her grandson had been fixing his brother’s bicycle in his own front yard. It was a hot day, and her grandson was shirtless. All of a sudden, an unmarked truck went speeding towards Mrs. Tucker’s grandson, and out jumped two white plainclothes deputies. The deputies tackled her grandson to the ground and began aggressively searching through his pockets. Petrified, Mrs. Tucker shouted to the deputies that he was her grandson and asked what he had done wrong. The deputies abruptly got
67

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 68 of 88
up after finding nothing in her grandson’s pockets. As they went back to their truck, one of the deputies said to Mrs. Tucker: “Tell your grandson to wear a shirt next time.”
243. Ms. Tucker does not assert claims arising from the incidents described immediately above. Instead, Ms. Tucker brings the claims set forth in paragraphs 237 through 240 above on behalf of the Roadblock Class. The events described immediately above, however, are illustrative of the MCSD’s pervasive pattern of civil rights violations against Madison County’s Black community.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 244. The Class Representative Plaintiffs seek to bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of two classes of those similarly situated pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 245. Class Representative Plaintiffs Latoya Brown, Lawrence Blackmon, Nicholas Singleton, Bessie Thomas, and Betty Jean Williams Tucker seek to represent the following class in order to obtain declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Defendants’ policy or longstanding practice of unconstitutional vehicular roadblocks:
All Black motorists and passengers who since May 2014 have been or will be in the future stopped or detained at a vehicular checkpoint or roadblock instituted by agents of the Madison County Sheriff’s Department while traveling in, through, or in the immediate vicinity of the following locations within Madison County, Mississippi: (i) the city of Canton and the adjoining unincorporated area contained within U.S. Census tract No. 305; (ii) the communities of Flora and Kearney Park and surrounding unincorporated areas contained within U.S. Census tract No. 303.02; (iii) the city of Ridgeland; and (iv) the unincorporated areas of Madison County contained within U.S. Census tracts Nos. 309 and 310, including the community of Camden (the “Roadblock Class”).
68

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 69 of 88
246. Class Representative Plaintiffs Latoya Brown, Steven Smith, and Khadafy Manning seek to represent the following class in order to obtain declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Defendants’ policy or longstanding practice of unconstitutional pedestrian stops:
All Black persons who since May 2014 have been or will be in the future stopped, detained, questioned, or searched by agents of the Madison County Sheriff’s Department in the absence of reasonable, articulable suspicion or probable cause within Madison County, Mississippi while traveling as pedestrians or while present within the curtilages of homes or the grounds or common areas of multiunit residential complexes or developments (the “Pedestrian Stop Class”). 247. The Roadblock Class and the Pedestrian Stop Class meet all of the requirements of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In addition, both classes are defined by objective criteria and thus satisfy the implied requirement of ascertainability, as set forth in the Court’s January 4 Order. 248. The members of the Roadblock Class and the Pedestrian Stop Class are so numerous as to render joinder impracticable. As of the 2010 census, over 36,000 Black persons reside in Madison County.78 The unlawful law enforcement activities described herein, and the resulting violations of Black individuals’ constitutional rights, have occurred, and will continue to occur, on a routine basis and for the foreseeable future unless such conduct is enjoined by this Court. 249. In addition, joinder is impracticable because, upon information and belief, many members of the Class are not aware of the fact that their constitutional rights have been violated and that they have the right to seek redress in court. Many members of the Class are without the means to retain an attorney to represent them in a civil rights lawsuit. Moreover, many Class
78 Quickfacts: Madison County, Mississippi, U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/28089,28 (last visited February 4, 2019).
69

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 70 of 88
members who have been victimized by Defendants’ unconstitutional practices do not bring individual claims for fear of retaliation and reprisals by Defendants and their agents. There is no appropriate avenue for protection of the Class members’ constitutional rights other than a class action.
250. At least the following common questions of law or fact are central to the claims of the Roadblock Class:
(a) Whether the MCSD has a policy or widespread custom or practice of disproportionately establishing roadblocks in specific locations based on the racial composition of the surrounding area, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause;
(b) Whether the MCSD has a policy or widespread custom or practice of establishing roadblocks for the primary purpose of crime control, in contravention of the Fourth Amendment; and
(c) Whether the MCSD has a policy or widespread custom or practice of establishing roadblocks with inadequate procedural safeguards, in contravention of the Fourth Amendment. 251. At least the following common questions of law or fact are central to the claims of the Pedestrian Stop Class Plaintiffs seek to certify:
(a) Whether the MCSD has a policy, or longstanding custom or practice of conducting searches and seizures of Black persons in the absence of reasonable, articulable suspicion, or probable cause;
(b) Whether the MCSD has a policy, or longstanding custom or practice of conducting searches and seizures of Black persons on the basis of race; and
(c) Whether the MCSD’s policy or longstanding custom or practice of
70

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 71 of 88
targeting predominantly-Black apartment complexes is motivated by racial bias or animus. 252. The legal theories under which the Class Representative Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief are the same or similar to those on which all members of the Roadblock Class and the Pedestrian Stop Class will rely, and the harms suffered by the Class Representative Plaintiffs are typical of the harms suffered by members Roadblock Class and the Pedestrian Stop Class. 253. The Class Representative Plaintiffs have a strong personal interest in the outcome of this action, have no conflicts of interest with members of the Plaintiff Class, and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. The Class Representative Plaintiffs are all current or former Black residents of Madison County or nearby areas who continue to reside in, have their permanent place of residence in, travel to and in, and/or intend in the near future to reside in, Madison County. As long as the MCSD continues to implement the policies, practices, and/or customs described herein, the Class Representative Plaintiffs will remain at substantial risk of suffering constitutional violations as a result of the conduct of MCSD personnel. Plaintiffs Khadafy Manning and Quinnetta Manning are seeking compensatory and punitive damages only on an individual basis. 254. The Class Representative Plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi, the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, and by the law firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP. Counsel for the Plaintiffs have the resources, expertise, and experience to prosecute this action. Counsel for the Plaintiffs know of no conflicts among members of the Class or between the attorneys and members of the Class.
71

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 72 of 88
255. The Roadblock Class and the Pedestrian Stop Class should each be certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the two classes, thereby making class-wide declaratory and injunctive relief appropriate with respect to each class.
INDIVIDUAL ALLEGATIONS OF KHADAFY AND QUINNETTA MANNING 256. In June 2016, Deputy Slade Moore and several other white male MCSD deputies
stormed into the Manning family’s home demanding that Mr. and Mrs. Manning execute false witness statements. Deputy Moore severely beat Mr. Manning and threatened him with jail time for his refusal to write a statement. A few months ago, Mr. Manning was falsely arrested by an MCSD deputy in retaliation for Mr. Manning’s efforts to seek legal redress for the injuries he suffered during the June 2016 incident. These events are described in further detail below.
257. On June 26, 2016, at approximately 7 am in the morning, Mrs. Manning heard a loud banging on her front door. Mrs. Manning asked who was at the door at least twice before she heard a male voice answer that it was “the police.”
258. Mrs. Manning opened the door slightly and saw Deputy Moore and several other white male MCSD deputies standing at her doorstep. She asked the deputies what questions they had for her. Deputy Moore asked, with no basis or justification: “Oh, y’all smoking weed in there?” Mrs. Manning responded that she did not smoke marijuana or use other illegal drugs. Neither Deputy Moore nor any of the other deputies asked Mrs. Manning for permission to enter her home. Deputy Moore pushed past Mrs. Manning and barged into her home without her consent or any mention of a search warrant. The other deputies followed.
259. None of the deputies inquired about or searched for illegal drugs once they were inside the Mannings’ family home.
72

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 73 of 88
260. The Mannings’ three sons—the youngest of whom was then only five years old— were all at home that morning, as was the Mannings’ eighteen-year-old niece.
261. Upon entering the Manning family’s home, Deputy Moore shouted: “I know y’all seen what went on downstairs, so are you going to be witnesses or are you going to be suspects?”
262. Mrs. Manning surmised that Deputy Moore was referring to a dispute between her neighbor and her neighbor’s boyfriend (the “boyfriend”) that had taken place earlier that morning. Mrs. Manning realized that the deputies were trying to find a basis for charging the boyfriend with a property crime—even though Mrs. Manning had not witnessed any such crime.
263. Deputy Moore demanded that Mrs. Manning write a witness statement confirming that she had seen the boyfriend reach his hand through the broken window of her neighbor’s apartment. Mrs. Manning attempted to tell Deputy Moore that she had only seen the boyfriend removing pieces of broken glass from her neighbor’s apartment window. Mrs. Manning told Deputy Moore that she had not seen the boyfriend reach his hand through the broken window.
264. Deputy Moore told Mrs. Manning that he “knew” she had seen the boyfriend reaching into her neighbor’s window, and told Mrs. Manning to “stop lying to us.” Deputy Moore repeatedly told Mrs. Manning that she could either write the witness statement he demanded, or she could be treated as a suspect herself.
265. At around this time, Mr. Manning—who had just woken up—hobbled out of his bedroom wearing only his underwear. Mr. Manning told his wife that she did not have to provide the deputies with the false witness statement they requested. Mr. Manning told the deputies that he “knew his rights.”
266. Deputy Moore then flew into a rage. One of the MCSD deputies grabbed Mrs. Manning by the arm, while Deputy Moore dragged Mr. Manning across the room and put him in
73

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 74 of 88
handcuffs. Deputy Moore started cursing at Mr. Manning, and told him that he had “smart ass mouth.” Deputy Moore then proceeded to choke Mr. Manning with both of his hands. Terrified, Mrs. Manning began recording the incident on her cellular phone.
267. When Deputy Moore finally stopped choking Mr. Manning, he started to shout that he would jail the Mannings if they refused to write the witness statements he wanted.
268. The Mannings tried to tell Deputy Moore that Mr. Manning is physically disabled. From that point forward, Deputy Moore referred to Mr. Manning as “Crip” or “Mr. Cripple.”
269. Deputy Moore then demanded to see identification for Mr. Manning, who was still in handcuffs. (Mrs. Manning was also compelled to provide her identification to one of the deputies during the incident.) When Mrs. Manning went to her bedroom to get Mr. Manning’s identification, she left her phone on the counter. One of the deputies then stood in front of the counter to prevent Mrs. Manning from retrieving her phone.
270. Deputy Moore informed Mrs. Manning that if she did not write the witness statement he requested, he would jail Mr. Manning and set his bond at $50,000—a sum that the Mannings would never be able to pay. A petrified Mrs. Manning finally said that she would write whatever witness statement the deputies wanted.
271. Deputy Moore then told Mrs. Manning that he was going to take her husband to jail anyway, and started hauling Mr. Manning towards the front door. Mrs. Manning pleaded with Deputy Moore to at least allow her to give Mr. Manning his cane, pants, and shoes, since her husband was still wearing nothing but his underpants. Deputy Moore refused, and told Mrs. Manning that there was no need for clothes since Mr. Manning would get a jumpsuit at jail.
272. As Deputy Moore headed out of the doorway with Mr. Manning in tow, Mrs. Manning managed to grab her cellphone from the counter and begin recording the incident again.
74

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 75 of 88
One of the deputies knocked the phone out of Mrs. Manning’s hand, and a third deputy physically blocked Mrs. Manning from following Deputy Moore outside.
273. Several of the Mannings’ neighbors heard the commotion and rushed outside to see what was happening. These neighbors shouted to Deputy Moore that Mr. Manning could not move as quickly as he was being dragged due to his disability. The Mannings’ neighbors also tried to tell Deputy Moore that Mr. Manning had no involvement with that morning’s burglary. Deputy Moore ignored the neighbors and shoved Mr. Manning into his vehicle.
274. Mr. Manning was humiliated that his neighbors saw him being forcibly taken out of his family’s home while wearing only his underwear.
275. One of the deputies who was still in the Manning family home asked Deputy Moore what he should do with Mrs. Manning. Deputy Moore said that Mrs. Manning could either “write a statement or go to County.” Knowing that she could not leave her children alone, with both of their parents in jail, Mrs. Manning scribbled out the witness statement the deputies demanded. She can hardly remember what she wrote.
276. Once Mr. Manning was inside the deputy’s vehicle, Deputy Moore hit Mr. Manning’s head repeatedly with his fists, and struck him multiple times in the chest with a hard, black object that Mr. Manning could not identify. Mr. Manning was in so much pain that he finally agreed, while weeping, to write a witness statement incriminating the boyfriend. Still, Deputy Moore continued beating Mr. Manning. Deputy Moore told Mr. Manning that his wife would be better off with him dead.
277. Finally, after what seemed like an eternity to Mr. Manning, Deputy Moore uncuffed him. Mr. Manning then wrote a statement with his hands shaking and tears rolling
75

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 76 of 88
down his face. Only when the statement was complete did Deputy Moore release Mr. Manning, who then stumbled barefoot in his underwear back into his home as his neighbors watched.
278. Mr. Manning’s face was swollen and bruised from the assault, and his wrists were cut and black and blue from the tight handcuffs. He went to the hospital to seek medical treatment the following day. Hospital records show that Mr. Manning suffered both a sprained wrist and chest contusions.
279. Mr. Manning continues to feel deep shame at his inability to protect his family, as well as his public humiliation in full view of his neighbors. He still experiences intense feelings of sadness and depression about the incident.
280. Mr. Manning was shot in October 2015. His recovery was derailed as a result of the abuse by Deputy Moore on June 26, 2016, including by having to increase his medication for pain.
281. As a result of the traumatic June 26, 2016 incident, Mr. Manning’s relationship with his wife and sons has suffered.
282. Mrs. Manning was extremely shaken up by the incident. She is very scared of what might happen every time she interacts with an MCSD deputy, which can happen at one of the many roadblocks and “checkpoints” that the MCSD regularly sets up in and around her neighborhood.
283. As a result of the traumatic June 26, 2016 incident, Mrs. Manning’s life has been disrupted. She no longer attends cosmetology school or teaches youth dance, and her relationship with her husband and her sons has been damaged. She has received counseling for these problems.
76

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 77 of 88
284. In addition, as a result of the traumatic June 26, 2016 incident, Mrs. Manning’s pre-existing medical condition of fibromyalgia worsened and, as a result, her medication increased.
CAUSES OF ACTION I. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Claims of Class Representative Plaintiffs and Class Members Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against Defendants for Violations of the Fourth Amendment) 285. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 284 above as if fully set forth herein. 286. Defendants Sheriff Tucker and the County have implemented, enforced, encouraged, and sanctioned a policy, practice, and/or custom of conducting unreasonable searches and seizures of members of the Roadblock Class and the Pedestrian Stop Class in the absence of reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause. These constitutional abuses are at times accompanied by the use of excessive force. 287. The MCSD’s constitutional abuses and violations were and are directly and proximately caused by policies, practices, and/or customs devised, implemented, enforced, encouraged, and sanctioned by the County and Sheriff Tucker, including: (a) the failure to adequately and properly screen, train, and supervise MCSD personnel; (b) the failure to adequately and properly monitor and discipline MCSD personnel; and (c) the overt and tacit encouragement and sanctioning of, and the failure to rectify, the MCSD’s practice of conducting unconstitutional searches and seizures. 288. Each of the Defendants has acted with deliberate indifference to the Fourth Amendment rights of the Class Representative Plaintiffs and other members of the Roadblock Class and the Pedestrian Stop Class. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of
77

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 78 of 88
each of the Defendants, the Fourth Amendment rights of the Class Representative Plaintiffs and other members of the Roadblock Class and the Pedestrian Stop Class have been violated. By acting under color of state law to deprive the Class Representative Plaintiffs and other members of the Roadblock Class and the Pedestrian Stop Class of their rights under the Fourth Amendment, Defendants have violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which prohibits the deprivation under color of state law of rights secured under the United States Constitution.
289. The MCSD targets individuals for suspicionless and otherwise unjustified detentions, frisks, searches, and arrests in areas where Plaintiffs reside and/or visit. Thus, a real and immediate threat exists that the Fourth Amendment rights of the Class Representative Plaintiffs and other members of the Roadblock Class and the Pedestrian Stop Class will be violated by MCSD personnel in the immediate future. Moreover, because Defendants’ policies, practices, and/or customs subject the Class Representative Plaintiffs and other members of the Roadblock Class and the Pedestrian Stop Class to suspicionless and otherwise unjustified detentions, frisks, searches, and arrests without any reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminality, and on the basis of their race, the Class Representative Plaintiffs and other members of the Roadblock Class and the Pedestrian Stop Class cannot alter their behavior to avoid future violations of their constitutional and civil rights by the MCSD.
290. The Class Representative Plaintiffs and other members of the Roadblock Class and the Pedestrian Stop Class have no adequate remedy at law and will suffer serious and irreparable harm to their constitutional rights unless Defendants are enjoined from continuing the MCSD’s policy, practice, and/or custom of conducting unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, vehicles, and property as described herein. II. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
78

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 79 of 88
(Claims of Class Representative Plaintiffs and Class Members Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against Defendants for Violations of the Equal Protection Clause)
291. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 290 above as if fully set forth herein.
292. Defendants Sheriff Tucker and the County have implemented, enforced, encouraged, and sanctioned a policy, practice, and/or custom of establishing roadblocks in the County based on the racial demographics of the surrounding area, and thereby disproportionately and discriminatorily targeting Black persons who reside in or travel through these areas of Madison County. In addition, Defendants Sheriff Tucker and the County have implemented, enforced, encouraged, and sanctioned a policy, practice, and/or custom of conducting stops and searches of Black pedestrians based on their race. These policies, practices, and/or customs violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The MCSD’s constitutional abuses and violations were and are directly and proximately caused by policies, practices, and/or customs devised, implemented, enforced, encouraged, and sanctioned by the County and Sheriff Tucker, including: (a) the failure to adequately and properly screen, train, and supervise MCSD personnel; (b) the failure to adequately and properly monitor and discipline MCSD personnel; and (c) the overt and tacit encouragement and sanctioning of, and the failure to rectify, the MCSD’s use of racial profiling.
293. Each of the Defendants has acted with deliberate indifference to the Fourteenth Amendment rights of the Class Representative Plaintiffs and other members of the Roadblock Class and the Pedestrian Stop Class. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of each of the Defendants, the Fourteenth Amendment rights of the Class Representative Plaintiffs and other members of the Roadblock Class and the Pedestrian Stop Class have been violated. By acting under color of state law to deprive the Class Representative Plaintiffs and other members
79

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 80 of 88
of the Roadblock Class and the Pedestrian Stop Class of their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, Defendants have violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
294. The MCSD targets Black persons in areas where the Class Representative Plaintiffs and other members of the Roadblock Class and the Pedestrian Stop Class reside and/or visit. As a result, a real and immediate threat exists that the Fourteenth Amendment rights of the Class Representative Plaintiffs and other members of the Roadblock Class and the Pedestrian Stop Class will be violated by MCSD personnel in the immediate future. Moreover, because Defendants’ policies, practices, and/or customs subject the Class Representative Plaintiffs and other members of the Roadblock Class and the Pedestrian Stop Class to unreasonable detentions, frisks, searches, and arrests without any reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminality, and on the basis of their race, the Class Representative Plaintiffs and other members of the Roadblock Class and the Pedestrian Stop Class cannot alter their behavior to avoid future violations of their constitutional and civil rights by the MCSD.
295. The Class Representative Plaintiffs and other members of the Roadblock Class and the Pedestrian Stop Class have no adequate remedy at law and will suffer serious and irreparable harm to their constitutional rights unless Defendants are enjoined from continuing the MCSD’s policies, practices, and/or customs of racially discriminatory roadblocks and pedestrian stops as described herein. III. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Claims of Class Representative Plaintiffs and Class Members Pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, et seq., Against the County) 296. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 295 above as if fully set forth
herein.
80

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 81 of 88
297. The law enforcement activities described in this Complaint have been funded, in part, with federal funds.
298. Discrimination based on race in law enforcement activities and other conduct described herein is prohibited under 42 U.S.C. § 2000(d), et seq. The acts and conduct of the Defendants complained of herein were motivated by racial animus, and were intended to discriminate on the basis of race and/or had a disparate impact on minorities, namely Black residents of and visitors to the County.
299. As a direct and proximate cause of the above mentioned acts, the Class Representative Plaintiffs and members of the Roadblock Class and the Pedestrian Stop Class have suffered injuries and damages and have been deprived of their rights under the Civil Rights Act. Without appropriate injunctive relief, these violations will continue to occur. IV. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Individual Claims of Khadafy Manning Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against MCSD Deputy Slade Moore, in His Individual Capacity)
300. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 299 above as if fully set forth herein.
301. The conduct of MCSD Deputy Slade Moore on June 26, 2016 in unlawfully seizing, handcuffing, choking, dragging, and beating Mr. Manning; and unlawfully compelling Mr. Manning to write a false witness statement under threat of criminal punishment, was conduct performed entirely under color of law and absent reasonable suspicion of criminality or other constitutionally-required grounds. The seizure, which amounted to an arrest of; and the compelled execution of a false witness statement by, Plaintiff Khadafy Manning by Deputy Moore was carried out using unjustified and unconstitutionally excessive force.
81

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 82 of 88
302. As a direct and proximate result of such acts, Deputy Moore deprived Mr. Manning of his Fourth Amendment rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
303. As a direct and proximate result of those constitutional abuses, Mr. Manning has suffered, and will continue to suffer, physical, mental, and emotional pain and suffering, mental anguish, embarrassment, and humiliation.
304. The acts of Deputy Moore were intentional, wanton, malicious, reckless, and oppressive, thus entitling Plaintiff Khadafy Manning to an award of punitive damages.
V. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Individual Claims of Quinnetta Manning Pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against MCSD Deputy Slade Moore, in His Individual Capacity) 305. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 304 above as if fully set forth
herein. 306. The conduct of MCSD Deputy Slade Moore on June 26, 2016 in unlawfully and
forcibly entering Mrs. Manning’s home, without a warrant or her consent, and unlawfully detaining Mrs. Manning was conduct performed entirely under color of law and absent reasonable suspicion of criminality or other constitutionally-required grounds. The seizure, which amounted to an arrest, of Plaintiff Quinnetta Manning by Deputy Moore was carried out using excessive and disproportionate force.
307. As a direct and proximate result of such acts, Deputy Moore deprived Mrs. Manning of her Fourth Amendment rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
308. As a direct and proximate result of those constitutional abuses, Mrs. Manning has suffered, and will continue to suffer, physical, mental, and emotional pain and suffering, mental anguish, and crippling fear of law enforcement.
82

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 83 of 88

309. The acts of Deputy Moore were intentional, wanton, malicious, reckless, and

oppressive, thus entitling Plaintiff Quinnetta Manning to an award of punitive damages.

VI. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Individual Claims of Khadafy Manning and Quinnetta Manning Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against the County)

310. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 309 as if fully set forth herein.

311. Defendant Madison County has directly and proximately caused the MCSD’s

policy, practice, and/or custom of conducting unreasonable searches and seizures on the basis of

race, including by devising, implementing, enforcing, adopting, sanctioning, and ratifying a

policy, practice, and/or custom of (a) failing to adequately and properly screen, train, and

supervise MCSD personnel; (b) failing to adequately and properly monitor and discipline MCSD

personnel; and (c) overtly and tacitly encouraging and sanctioning, and failing to rectify the

MCSD’s constitutional abuses.

312. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid acts and omissions, Defendant

Madison County has deprived Plaintiffs Khadafy Manning and Quinnetta Manning of their

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Class Representative Plaintiffs and other members of the classes

they seek to represent pray that the Court will:

A. Issue an order certifying as classes pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure the Roadblock Class and the Pedestrian Stop Class, with the relevant Class Representative Plaintiffs as representatives of each class;

B. Issue class-wide judgments declaring that:

i.

Defendants’ policy or longstanding practice of establishing

vehicular roadblocks based on the racial demographics of the

surrounding area violates the rights of the Roadblock Class set

83

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 84 of 88

forth in the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act;

ii.

Defendants’ policy or longstanding practice of establishing

vehicular roadblocks for general criminal law enforcement

purposes violates the rights of the Roadblock Class set forth in the

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution;

iii.

Defendants’ policy or longstanding practice of establishing

vehicular roadblocks without appropriate procedural safeguards

violates the rights of the Roadblock Class set forth in the Fourth

Amendment to the United States Constitution;

iv.

Defendants’ policy or longstanding practice of conducting stops

and searches of Black persons on the basis of their race violates the

rights of the Pedestrian Stop Class set forth in the Equal Protection

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act; and

v.

Defendants’ policy or longstanding practice of conducting stops

and searches of Black persons in the absence of reasonable

suspicion violates the rights of the Pedestrian Stop Class set forth

in the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

C. Issue an order for the following injunctive relief:

i.

Enjoining Defendants from continuing their policy or longstanding

practice of establishing vehicular roadblocks based on the racial

demographics of the surrounding area;

ii.

Enjoining Defendants from continuing their policy or longstanding

practice of establishing vehicular roadblocks for general criminal

law enforcement purposes;

iii.

Enjoining Defendants from continuing their policy or longstanding

practice of establishing vehicular roadblocks without appropriate

procedural safeguards;

iv.

Enjoining Defendants from continuing their policy or longstanding

practice of conducting stops and searches of Black persons on the

basis of their race;

v.

Enjoining Defendants from continuing their policy or longstanding

practice of conducting stops and searches of Black persons in the

absence of reasonable suspicion;

84

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 85 of 88

vi.

Requiring Defendants to establish an independent civilian

complaint review board which will be tasked with reviewing and

investigating complaints by the public against the MCSD; and

requiring Defendants to empower the civilian complaint review

board to investigate MCSD policies and practices to identify

systemic problems, subpoena MCSD documents and testimony for

investigations, and impose binding disciplinary decisions upon

findings that an officer of the MCSD has violated civil rights;

vii.

Requiring Defendants to institute and implement improved written

policies, procedures, and training programs that are designed to

eliminate the MCSD’s unconstitutional policing policies and

practices;

viii.

Requiring Defendants to deploy MCSD personnel with appropriate

and adequate supervision;

ix.

Requiring Defendants to implement appropriate measures to

ensure that MCSD deputies document:

1. all roadblocks and checkpoints, including the location of each roadblock and checkpoint and the number, race, and gender of each individual(s) stopped;

2. all stops, frisks, and searches, including the basis for and the location of each stop, frisk, and search, and the number, race, and gender of each individual stopped, frisked, and/or searched; and

3. all citations and arrests, including the date, location, and circumstances under which the citation was issued and/or the arrest made, the basis and/or charge for the arrest/citation, and the race and gender of each individual cited or arrested,

in sufficient detail as to permit supervisory review for compliance with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act;

x.

Requiring Defendants to implement appropriate measures to

ensure that documentation of all vehicular stops and pedestrian

stops and/or frisks is retained in a single, up-to-date computerized

database;

xi.

Requiring Defendants to make publicly available, on a semiannual

basis, data on all roadblocks, checkpoints, stops, frisks, and

searches, conducted by the MCSD, including the locations of each

roadblock, checkpoint, stop, frisk and/or search and the race,

85

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 86 of 88

ethnicity, and gender of each individual stopped and/or searched, as well as the purpose of the roadblocks/checkpoints and the reasons for stops, frisks, and searches;

xii.

Requiring Defendants to monitor and audit MCSD policies,

practices, and customs to ensure that all roadblocks, checkpoints,

stops, frisks, and searches, comport with constitutional and

statutory requirements, including by, among other things,

periodically reviewing forms documenting roadblocks,

checkpoints, stops, frisks, and searches, and analyzing data on

roadblocks, checkpoints, stops, frisks, and searches;

xiii.

Requiring Defendants to acknowledge the role of policing in past

and present injustice and discrimination and how it is a hurdle to

the promotion of community trust; and

xiv.

Requiring Defendants to embrace a guardian mindset to build

public trust and legitimacy by adopting procedural justice as the

guiding principle for internal and external policies and practices to

guide their interactions with the citizens they serve.

D. Award Plaintiffs Khadafy Manning and Quinnetta Manning compensatory damages against MCSD Deputy Slade Moore and against the County in amounts that are fair, just, and reasonable, to be determined at trial;

E. Award Plaintiffs Khadafy Manning and Quinnetta Manning punitive damages against MCSD Deputy Slade Moore to the extent that his liability is based on reprehensible actions and/or inaction undertaken in his individual capacity, in amounts that are fair, just, and reasonably designed to punish and deter said reprehensible conduct, to be determined at trial;

F. Award all Plaintiffs, including the members of the Class, reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988;

G. Award all Plaintiffs, including the members of the Class, costs of suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 1988; and

H. Award such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate and equitable, including injunctive and declaratory relief as may be required in the interests of justice.

Dated: June 11, 2019

/s/ Joshua Tom

___________

Joshua Tom

86

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 87 of 88

SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP Jonathan K. Youngwood (pro hac vice) Janet A. Gochman (pro hac vice) Isaac Rethy (pro hac vice) Kavitha S. Sivashanker (pro hac vice) Nihara K. Choudhri (pro hac vice) Christopher K. Shields (pro hac vice) Brooke Jarrett (pro hac vice) 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 (212) 455-2000 jyoungwood@stblaw.com jgochman@stblaw.com irethy@stblaw.com kavitha.sivashanker@stblaw.com nchoudhri@stblaw.com christopher.shields@stblaw.com bonnie.jarrett@stblaw.com

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSISSIPPI FOUNDATION Joshua Tom (Miss. Bar No. 105392) 233 East Capitol Street Jackson, MS 39201 (601) 354-3408 JTom@aclu-ms.org
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION Ezekiel Edwards (pro hac vice) Jeffery Robinson (pro hac vice forthcoming) 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 (212) 549-2610 eedwards@aclu.org jrobinson@aclu.org

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

87

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 363 Filed 06/11/19 Page 88 of 88
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 11, 2019, I caused the foregoing SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND INDIVIDUAL DAMAGES to be electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, through which copies have been served to:
WISE CARTER CHILD & CARAWAY, P.A. Michael B. Wallace (Miss. Bar No. 6904) Charles E. Ross (Miss. Bar No. 5683) James E. Graves (Miss. Bar No. 102252) Charles E. Cowan (Miss. Bar No. 104478) Post Office Box 651 Jackson, MS 39205 (601) 968-5534 mbw@wisecarter.com cer@wisecarter.com jeg@wisecarter.com cec@wisecarter.com
CURRIE JOHNSON & MYERS, P.A. Rebecca B. Cowan (Miss. Bar No. 7735) P.O. Box 750 Jackson, MS 39205 (601) 969-1010 bcowan@curriejohnson.com
KATIE BRYANT SNELL, PLLC Katie Bryant Snell (Miss. Bar No. 103607) P.O. Box 3007 Madison, Mississippi 39130-3007 (601) 460-9800 Katie@katiebryantsnell.com
PETTIS, BARFIELD & HESTER, P.A. J. Lawson Hester (Miss. Bar No. 2394) 4450 Old Canton Road, Suite 210 Jackson, Mississippi 39211 (601) 987-5300 lhester@pbhfirm.com
/s/ Joshua Tom Joshua Tom
88

 
 Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 374 Filed 10/11/19 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION

LATOYA BROWN et al.,

PLAINTIFFS

V.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-347-CWR-LRA

MADISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ Joint Motion For Entry of Consent Decree. After review of the facts, relevant law, the settlement agreement, the Consent Decree itself, and the presentations of counsel at the hearing on the Motion, the Court finds the Consent Decree to be fair, adequate and reasonable. Accordingly, and as discussed in the following, the Court grants the Joint Motion. I. Background The Plaintiffs filed their original class action complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief on May 8, 2017. The complaint also made individual claims for monetary damages for Plaintiffs Khadafy Manning and Quinnetta Thomas Manning. Plaintiffs alleged that the Madison County Sheriff’s Department (MCSD) methodically targeted Black individuals for unlawful searches and seizures, which were often accompanied by unjustified and excessive force. The complaint painted a picture of a Sheriff’s Department and County flagrantly subjecting Black residents to intrusive searches for no reason, seizures by plainclothes deputies deployed in unmarked cars during “Jump Out” patrols, and unwarranted breaking into of their “homes, cars, and property” – all based on race. According to the complaint, the Black community of Madison County has been “under a permanent state of siege,” fearful of even contacting law enforcement

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 374 Filed 10/11/19 Page 2 of 6
officials. The Defendants denied the Plaintiffs’ allegations, and the Court declined Plaintiffs’ request to allow this case to proceed as a class action.
After significant factual discovery and months-long settlement negotiations overseen and facilitated by Magistrate Judge Anderson, the Parties have agreed to resolve this matter. The terms of this resolution are captured in three documents: the Consent Decree, the Settlement Agreement, and the Apartment Incident Agreement. The Parties have agreed separately to maintain the confidentiality of the Settlement Agreement and the Apartment Incident Agreement (the “Agreements”). The Defendants have moved for this Court to enter a protective order as to the Agreements, which the Court will address separately.
The Consent Decree captures commitments by the Parties that would purport to address the Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief without certification of a settlement class, thus leaving third parties free to pursue their own claims should they believe their constitutional rights have been violated in the way in which this Consent Decree seeks to redress. Namely, MCSD agrees to adopt, implement, and train its officers on three policies: an Unbiased Policing Policy, a Checkpoint Policy, and a Pedestrian Stops and Enforcement Policy. Madison County and MCSD will also establish a five-member Community Advisory Board (CAB). The five members will be appointed by the Madison County Board of Supervisors, with each supervisor required to appoint one member from his or her district. The CAB will have the authority to: (1) review MCSD data regarding vehicular checkpoints and pedestrian stops; (2) receive civilian complaints concerning the MCSD; (3) make recommendations to the MCSD regarding its compliance with the Consent Decree; and (4) file enforcement proceedings against Defendants in this Court after following a multi-step process outlined in the Consent Decree. The
2

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 374 Filed 10/11/19 Page 3 of 6
Parties have agreed that the Consent Decree will remain in effect for four years, unless this Court finds that the Defendants have not substantially complied with its terms. II. Legal Standard
“In determining whether to approve a proposed settlement, the cardinal rule is that the District Court must find that the settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable and is not the product of collusion between the parties.” Cotton v. Hinton, 559 F.2d 1326, 1330 (5th Cir. 1977) (citation omitted). The Court must analyze “the facts and law relevant to the proposed compromise.” Id. (citation omitted). The Court’s role is not to adjudicate the dispute in this analysis, however, since “[t]he very purpose of the compromise is to avoid the delay and expense of such a trial.” Parker v. Anderson, 667 F.2d 1204, 1209 (5th Cir. 1982) (citation omitted). III. Discussion
Before the Court is the Parties’ request to approve the Consent Decree, which encapsulates the bulk of the Parties’ settlement terms and addresses the Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. It is not the Court’s role to “substitute its own judgment” for that of the Parties’ counsel. Cotton, 559 F.2d at 1330 (citation omitted). The Court has been presented with no evidence of “fraud, collusion, or the like” influencing the Consent Decree. Id. Because of this, the Court grants the Joint Motion and enters the Consent Decree.
The matter merits some additional discussion, however, considering recent statements attributed to Madison County’s Board of Supervisors President Trey Baxter, which the Parties brought to the Court’s attention.1 The Madison County Journal reports that “Baxter said he would make his appointment but that he did not see the council’s role as vital.”2 The article
1 See Tyler Cleveland, Supervisors settle ACLU lawsuit over roadblocks, MADISON COUNTY JOURNAL (Sept. 11, 2019, 12:00 PM), http://onlinemadison.com/MobileContent/Default/News/Article/Supervisors-settle-ACLUlawsuit-over-roadblocks/-3/592/42789. 2 Id.
3

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 374 Filed 10/11/19 Page 4 of 6
quotes Baxter saying that he is “confident (Sheriff Randy Tucker) is capable of running his own department. But we’re going to go along with the four-year agreement that is in place.”3
Although the Board “speaks and acts only through its minutes,” Lefoldt v. Horne, L.L.P., No. 18-60581, 2019 WL 4231355, at *3 (5th Cir. Sept. 6, 2019) (citing Wellness, Inc. v. Pearl River Cty. Hosp., 178 So. 3d 1287, 1290 (Miss. 2015)), as the President of the Board of Supervisors, Baxter’s statements are deeply concerning. The comments attributed to him do not align with the Parties’ own compromise, which shows that the CAB is central to the ongoing monitoring and enforcement of the MCSD’s compliance with the Consent Decree. Perhaps more importantly, the CAB provides the Plaintiffs and other Madison County Residents who may be harmed by MCSD with a relatively independent third-party to hear their complaints and act on them. Given the significant time and effort of the Parties to reach this agreement and their assertions that it was reached through “arms-length bargaining and good faith negotiations,” the Court fully expects all the Parties to follow the terms of the Consent Decree. Nevertheless, they have decided to empower the CAB to make sure MCSD operates in accordance with the Constitution.
Civilian oversight is not a silver bullet for addressing police misconduct, however. Its early attempts failed for a host of reasons, including lack of resources and “resistance from police unions and local politicians.”4 Now, over 150 civilian oversight bodies have been created
3 Id. 4 JOSEPH DE ANGELIS ET AL., CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT: ASSESSING THE EVIDENCE 6 (Sept. 2016), https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/nacole/pages/161/attachments/original/1481727974/NACOLE_Accessingth eEvidence_Final.pdf?1481727974 (citation omitted).
4

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 374 Filed 10/11/19 Page 5 of 6
across the United States.5 They are difficult to generalize because they have different models and varied goals, primarily based on the needs and context of their local communities.6
Notwithstanding their unique nature, civilian oversight bodies require certain circumstances to be successful. This includes, among other things, adequate resources, independence, full cooperation of law enforcement, and support from political stakeholders.7 Absent these factors, many oversight agencies have become dysfunctional, unable to meet the requirements of the agreements or policies that led to their establishment.8 In many instances, such agencies were eventually abolished.9
Baxter’s comments suggest that CAB may not have his support, which is again concerning given his role on the Board of Supervisors. According to the Consent Decree, the CAB is dependent on Madison County and MCSD for “providing necessary support and resources.” The Madison County Board of Supervisors will also effectively decide whether the CAB will be truly independent based on the members they appoint. As with any agreement, the overall success of this compromise is dependent upon the genuine efforts and cooperation of the Board of Supervisors, MCSD, and all other actors who have a stake in this process.
It is the Court’s hope that the Parties do not merely “go along” with the Consent Decree in the short-term interest of settling a lawsuit but commit with sincerity to its stated principle to “recognize the importance of the rights protected by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to
5 See Olugbenga Ajilore, How Civilian Review Boards Can Further Police Accountability and Improve Community Relations, SCHOLARS STRATEGY NETWORK (June 25, 2018), https://scholars.org/brief/how-civilian-review-boardscan-further-police-accountability-and-improve-community-relations. 6 See ANGELIS ET AL., supra note 5 at 49–50; see also Stephen Clarke, Arrested Oversight: A Comparative Analysis and Case Study of How Civilian Oversight of the Police Should Function and How it Fails, 43 COLUM. J.L. & SOC. PROBS. 1, 11–20 (2009) (comparing four types of civilian-oversight bodies). 7 See ANGELIS ET AL., supra note 5 at 36. 8 Id. at 18–22. 9 Id. at 6–7.
5

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 374 Filed 10/11/19 Page 6 of 6 the United States Constitution.” Otherwise, the life of this Consent Decree may be extended beyond four years.10 IV. Conclusion
The Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Decree is granted. SO ORDERED, this the 11th day of October, 2019.
s/ Carlton W. Reeves UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10 At the hearing, counsel for the Sheriff and the additional Defendants suggested strongly that the life of this decree will not have to be extended.
6

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 374-1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 1 of 28

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 374-1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 2 of 28

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 374-1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 3 of 28

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 374-1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 4 of 28

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 374-1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 5 of 28

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 374-1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 6 of 28

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 374-1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 7 of 28

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 374-1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 8 of 28

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 374-1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 9 of 28

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 374-1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 10 of 28

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 374-1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 11 of 28

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 374-1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 12 of 28

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 374-1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 13 of 28

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 374-1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 14 of 28

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 374-1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 15 of 28

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 374-1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 16 of 28

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 374-1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 17 of 28

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 374-1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 18 of 28

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 374-1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 19 of 28

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 374-1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 20 of 28

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 374-1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 21 of 28

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 374-1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 22 of 28

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 374-1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 23 of 28

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 374-1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 24 of 28

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 374-1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 25 of 28

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 374-1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 26 of 28

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 374-1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 27 of 28

Case 3:17-cv-00347-CWR-LRA Document 374-1 Filed 10/11/19 Page 28 of 28

 
 Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 1 of 54
CLOSED,JURY,LRA
U.S. District Court Southern District of Mississippi (Northern (Jackson)) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:17−cv−00347−CWR−LRA

Brown et al v. Madison County, Mississippi et al Assigned to: District Judge Carlton W. Reeves Referred to: Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 05/08/2017 Date Terminated: 10/23/2019 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Latoya Brown individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated

represented by Joshua F. Tom ACLU OF MISSISSIPPI − Jackson P. O. Box 2242 233 East Capitol Street (39201) Jackson, MS 39225−2242 601/354−3408 Fax: 601/355−6465 Email: jtom@aclu−ms.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brooke Jarrett − PHV SIMPSON, THACHER & BARTLETT, LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017−3954 212/455−2623 Fax: 212/455−2502 Email: bonnie.jarrett@stblaw.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher K. Shields − PHV SIMPSON, THACHER & BARTLETT, LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017−3954 212/455−2431 Fax: 212/455−2502 Email: christopher.shields@stblaw.com TERMINATED: 09/06/2019 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ezekiel Edwards − PHV AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, INC.−New York 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 212/549−2610 Fax: 212/549−2654 Email: eedwards@aclu.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Isaac Rethy − PHV SIMPSON, THACHER & BARTLETT, LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017−3954 212/455−3869

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 2 of 54
Fax: 212/455−2502 Email: irethy@stblaw.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Janet A. Gochman − PHV SIMPSON, THACHER & BARTLETT, LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017−3954 212/455−2815 Fax: 212/455−2502 Email: jgochman@stblaw.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan K. Youngwood − PHV SIMPSON, THACHER & BARTLETT, LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017−3954 212/455−3539 Fax: 212/455−2502 Email: jyoungwood@stblaw.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jumin Lee − PHV SIMPSON, THACHER & BARTLETT, LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017−3954 212/455−2525 Fax: 212/455−2502 Email: christopherjumin.lee@stblaw.com TERMINATED: 07/17/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kavitha Satya Sivashanker − PHV SIMPSON, THACHER & BARTLETT, LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017−3954 212/455−2197 Fax: 212/455−2502 Email: kavitha.sivashanker@stblaw.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Landon P. Thames ACLU OF MISSISSIPPI − Jackson P. O. Box 2242 233 East Capitol Street (39201) Jackson, MS 39225−2242 601/354−3408 Fax: 601/355−6465 Email: lthames@aclu−ms.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nihara Karim Choudhri − PHV SIMPSON, THACHER & BARTLETT, LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017−3954

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 3 of 54

212/455−2036 Fax: 212/876−5343 Email: nchoudhri@stblaw.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paloma Wu SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER − Jackson 111 East Capitol Street, Suite 280 Jackson, MS 39201 601/948−8882 Fax: 601/948−8885 Email: paloma.wu@splcenter.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yukiu Chan − PHV SIMPSON, THACHER & BARTLETT, LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017−3954 212/455−2816 Fax: 212/876−5343 Email: monica.chan@stblaw.com TERMINATED: 01/17/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Lawrence Blackmon individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated

represented by Joshua F. Tom (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brooke Jarrett − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher K. Shields − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2019 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ezekiel Edwards − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Isaac Rethy − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Janet A. Gochman − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan K. Youngwood − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 4 of 54

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jumin Lee − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kavitha Satya Sivashanker − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Landon P. Thames (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nihara Karim Choudhri − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paloma Wu (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/19/2017 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yukiu Chan − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/17/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Herbert Anthony Green individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 09/12/2019

represented by Joshua F. Tom (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brooke Jarrett − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher K. Shields − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2019 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ezekiel Edwards − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Isaac Rethy − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Janet A. Gochman − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 5 of 54

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan K. Youngwood − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jumin Lee − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kavitha Satya Sivashanker − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Landon P. Thames (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nihara Karim Choudhri − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paloma Wu (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/19/2017 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yukiu Chan − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/17/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Khadafy Manning individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated

represented by Joshua F. Tom (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brooke Jarrett − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher K. Shields − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2019 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ezekiel Edwards − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Isaac Rethy − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 6 of 54

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Janet A. Gochman − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan K. Youngwood − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jumin Lee − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kavitha Satya Sivashanker − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Landon P. Thames (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nihara Karim Choudhri − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paloma Wu (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/19/2017 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yukiu Chan − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/17/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Quinnetta Manning individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated

represented by Joshua F. Tom (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brooke Jarrett − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher K. Shields − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2019 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ezekiel Edwards − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 7 of 54

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Isaac Rethy − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Janet A. Gochman − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan K. Youngwood − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jumin Lee − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kavitha Satya Sivashanker − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Landon P. Thames (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nihara Karim Choudhri − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paloma Wu (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/19/2017 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yukiu Chan − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/17/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Marvin McField individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 09/12/2019

represented by Joshua F. Tom (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brooke Jarrett − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher K. Shields − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2019 PRO HAC VICE

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 8 of 54

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ezekiel Edwards − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Isaac Rethy − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Janet A. Gochman − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan K. Youngwood − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jumin Lee − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kavitha Satya Sivashanker − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Landon P. Thames (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nihara Karim Choudhri − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paloma Wu (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/19/2017 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yukiu Chan − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/17/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Nicholas Singleton individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated

represented by Joshua F. Tom (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brooke Jarrett − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 9 of 54

Plaintiff
Steven Smith individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated

Christopher K. Shields − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2019 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ezekiel Edwards − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Isaac Rethy − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Janet A. Gochman − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan K. Youngwood − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jumin Lee − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kavitha Satya Sivashanker − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Landon P. Thames (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nihara Karim Choudhri − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paloma Wu (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/19/2017 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yukiu Chan − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/17/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Joshua F. Tom (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 10 of 54

Plaintiff

Brooke Jarrett − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher K. Shields − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2019 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ezekiel Edwards − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Isaac Rethy − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Janet A. Gochman − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan K. Youngwood − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jumin Lee − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kavitha Satya Sivashanker − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Landon P. Thames (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nihara Karim Choudhri − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paloma Wu (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/19/2017 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yukiu Chan − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/17/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 11 of 54

Bessie Thomas individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated

represented by Joshua F. Tom (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brooke Jarrett − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher K. Shields − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2019 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ezekiel Edwards − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Isaac Rethy − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Janet A. Gochman − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan K. Youngwood − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jumin Lee − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kavitha Satya Sivashanker − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Landon P. Thames (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nihara Karim Choudhri − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paloma Wu (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/19/2017 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yukiu Chan − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/17/2018

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 12 of 54

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Betty Jean Williams Tucker individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated

represented by Joshua F. Tom (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brooke Jarrett − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher K. Shields − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2019 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ezekiel Edwards − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Isaac Rethy − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Janet A. Gochman − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan K. Youngwood − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jumin Lee − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kavitha Satya Sivashanker − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Landon P. Thames (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nihara Karim Choudhri − PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paloma Wu (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/19/2017 PRO HAC VICE

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 13 of 54
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yukiu Chan − PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/17/2018 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Madison County, Mississippi

represented by Charles E. Cowan WISE, CARTER, CHILD & CARAWAY, PA − Jackson 401 East Capitol Street, Suite 600 P. O. Box 651 (39205−0651) Jackson, MS 39201 601/968−5514 Fax: 601/968−5519 Email: cec@wisecarter.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles E. Ross WISE, CARTER, CHILD & CARAWAY, PA − Jackson 401 East Capitol Street, Suite 600 P. O. Box 651 (39205−0651) Jackson, MS 39201 (601) 968−5500 Fax: (601) 968−5593 Email: cer@wisecarter.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
J. Lawson Hester PETTIS, BARFIELD & HESTER, PA P. O. Box 16089 (39236−6089) 4450 Old Canton Road, Suite 210 Jackson, MS 39211 601/987−5300 Fax: 601/987−5353 Email: lhester@pbhfirm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Earl Graves , III WISE, CARTER, CHILD & CARAWAY, PA − Jackson 401 East Capitol Street, Suite 600 P. O. Box 651 (39205−0651) Jackson, MS 39201 601/326−7705 Fax: 601/968−5593 Email: jeg@wisecarter.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason Edward Dare PETTIS, BARFIELD & HESTER, PA P. O. Box 16089 (39236−6089) 4450 Old Canton Road, Suite 210 Jackson, MS 39211 601/987−5300 Fax: 601/987−5353 Email: jdare@pbhfirm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 14 of 54

Katherine Bryant Snell KATIE BRYANT SNELL, PLLC P. O. Box 3007 741 Avignon Dr., Ste. A (Ridgeland − 39157) Madison, MS 39130 601/460−9800 Fax: 601/460−9801 Email: katie@katiebryantsnell.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael B. Wallace WISE, CARTER, CHILD & CARAWAY, PA − Jackson 401 East Capitol Street, Suite 600 P. O. Box 651 (39205−0651) Jackson, MS 39201 601/968−5534 Fax: 601/944−7738 Email: mbw@wisecarter.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rebecca B. Cowan CURRIE, JOHNSON & MYERS, PA − Jackson P. O. Box 750 1044 River Oaks Drive (39232) Jackson, MS 39205−0750 601/969−1010 Fax: 601/969−5120 Email: bcowan@curriejohnson.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

T. Russell Nobile WISE, CARTER, CHILD & CARRAWAY, PA− Gulfport 2510 14th Street, Suite 1125 Gulfport, MS 39501 228/867−7141 Fax: 228/867−7142 Email: trn@wisecarter.com TERMINATED: 05/08/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Sheriff Randall S. Tucker in his official capacity

represented by Charles E. Cowan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles E. Ross (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. Lawson Hester (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Earl Graves , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason Edward Dare (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 15 of 54

Defendant Madison County Sheriff's Deputies in their individual capacities
Defendant John Does 1−6 in their individual capacities

Katherine Bryant Snell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael B. Wallace (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca B. Cowan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
T. Russell Nobile (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/08/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles E. Cowan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles E. Ross (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Earl Graves , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Bryant Snell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael B. Wallace (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
T. Russell Nobile (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/08/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles E. Cowan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles E. Ross (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Earl Graves , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Bryant Snell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael B. Wallace

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 16 of 54

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Slade Moore

Interested Party Town of Flora Police Department

represented by William I. Gault , Jr. NIPPES, HEALY & GAULT, PLLC 6360 I−55 North, Suite 350 (39211) P.O. Box 12314 Jackson, MS 39236 601/952−2592 Fax: 601/510−8050 Email: bgault@billgaultlaw.com

Interested Party Toby Trowbridge

Date Filed 05/08/2017
05/08/2017 05/08/2017 05/08/2017 05/08/2017
05/08/2017
05/08/2017

# Docket Text
1 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Individual Damages against John Does 1−6, Madison County Sheriff's Deputies, Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 34643044831), filed by Marvin McField, Lawrence Blackmon, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Bessie Thomas, Steven Smith, Latoya Brown, Nicholas Singleton, Betty Jean Williams Tucker, Herbert Anthony Green. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Policy and Procedure, # 2 Exhibit B − Notice, # 3 Exhibit C − Policy and Procedure, # 4 Civil Cover Sheet)(MGB) Modified on 5/8/2017 (PKM). (Entered: 05/08/2017)
2 Summons Issued as to Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker. (MGB) (Entered: 05/08/2017)
Pro Hac Vice fee paid for Isaac Rethy receipt number 0538−3440288 $ 100 (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 05/08/2017)
3 First MOTION for Isaac Rethy to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Attachment In Response to Question B, # 2 Supplement Certificate of Good Standing)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 05/08/2017)
4 First MOTION for Nihara Choudhri to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Paid $100 PHV fee; receipt number 0538−3440322) by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Attachment in Response to Question B, # 2 Supplement Certificate of Good Standing)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 05/08/2017)
5 First MOTION for Yukiu Chan to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Paid $100 PHV fee; receipt number 0538−3440325) by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Attachment in Response to Question B, # 2 Supplement Certificate of Good Standing)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 05/08/2017)
6 First MOTION for Janet Gochman to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Paid $100 PHV fee; receipt number 0538−3440335) by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Attachment in Response to Question B, # 2 Supplement Certificate of Good Standing)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 05/08/2017)

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 17 of 54

05/08/2017
05/09/2017
05/10/2017
05/10/2017 05/19/2017 05/22/2017 05/22/2017 05/23/2017 05/23/2017 05/23/2017 06/14/2017 06/14/2017 06/15/2017
06/20/2017 06/22/2017 06/27/2017

7 First MOTION for Jonathan Youngwood to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Paid $100 PHV fee; receipt number 0538−3440337) by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Attachment in Response to Question B, # 2 Supplement Certificate of Good Standing)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 05/08/2017)
TEXT−ONLY ORDER granting 3 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Isaac Rethy; granting 4 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Nihara Choudhri; granting 5 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Yukiu Chan; granting 6 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Janet Gochman; and granting 7 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Jonathan Youngwood. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 5/9/2017. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL BE ISSUED. (WG) (Entered: 05/09/2017)
8 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Marvin McField, Lawrence Blackmon, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Bessie Thomas, Steven Smith, Latoya Brown, Betty Jean Williams Tucker, Nicholas Singleton, Herbert Anthony Green Madison County, Mississippi served on 5/9/2017, answer due 5/30/2017. (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 05/10/2017)
9 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Marvin McField, Lawrence Blackmon, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Bessie Thomas, Steven Smith, Latoya Brown, Betty Jean Williams Tucker, Nicholas Singleton, Herbert Anthony Green Randall S. Tucker served on 5/9/2017, answer due 5/30/2017. (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 05/10/2017)
10 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint,, by John Does 1−6, Madison County Sheriff's Deputies, Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Ross, Charles) (Entered: 05/19/2017)
TEXT−ONLY ORDER granting 10 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re 1 Complaint. Madison County, Mississippi answer due 6/29/2017; Randall S. Tucker answer due 6/29/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 5/22/2017. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE. (WG) (Entered: 05/22/2017)
11 NOTICE of Appearance by Rebecca B. Cowan on behalf of Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Cowan, Rebecca) (Entered: 05/22/2017)
12 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael B. Wallace on behalf of All Defendants (Wallace, Michael) (Entered: 05/23/2017)
13 ***ERROR****DISREGARD THIS ENTRY. NOTICE of Appearance by Charles E. Cowan on behalf of John Does 1−6, Madison County Sheriff's Deputies, Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker. (Cowan, Charles) Modified on 5/23/2017 (RRL). Modified on 6/14/2017 (cwl). (Entered: 05/23/2017)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to # 13: Sheriff Randall S. Tucker has been added as a filing party. (RRL) (Entered: 05/23/2017)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to # 13 : Attorney advises that there is an error in this entry, and it should be disregarded. (cwl) (Entered: 06/14/2017)
14 NOTICE of Appearance by Charles E. Cowan on behalf of Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Cowan, Charles) (Entered: 06/14/2017)
15 MOTION for Paloma Wu to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Paid $100 PHV fee; receipt number 0538−3467322) by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 06/15/2017)
TEXT−ONLY ORDER granting 15 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice of PALOMA WU as co−counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 6/20/2017. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE. (WG) (Entered: 06/20/2017)
16 NOTICE of Appearance by T. Russell Nobile on behalf of Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Nobile, T.) (Entered: 06/22/2017)
17 CORRECTED NOTICE of Appearance by Michael B. Wallace on behalf of Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Wallace, Michael) Modified on 6/27/2017

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 18 of 54

06/29/2017 06/29/2017 06/29/2017 06/30/2017 07/13/2017
07/13/2017
07/19/2017
07/19/2017 07/20/2017 07/20/2017 07/26/2017
07/26/2017 08/02/2017
08/08/2017
08/09/2017 09/01/2017 09/06/2017

(cwl). (Entered: 06/27/2017)
18 MOTION to Strike by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Wallace, Michael) (Entered: 06/29/2017)
19 MEMORANDUM in Support re 18 MOTION to Strike filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Wallace, Michael) (Entered: 06/29/2017)
20 ANSWER to 1 Complaint,, by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker.(Wallace, Michael) (Entered: 06/29/2017)
21 Rule 16(a) Initial Order Telephonic Case Management Conference set for 8/7/2017 03:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson (WG) (Entered: 06/30/2017)
22 RESPONSE in Opposition re 18 MOTION to Strike filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 07/13/2017)
23 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 18 MOTION to Strike filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 07/13/2017)
NOTICE OF RESETTING: Case Management Conference reset for an in person conference on 8/8/2017 03:00 PM in Courtroom 6D (Jackson) Anderson before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson per request of counsel (WG) (Entered: 07/19/2017)
24 NOTICE of Appearance by Katherine Bryant Snell on behalf of All Defendants (Snell, Katherine) (Entered: 07/19/2017)
25 NOTICE of Appearance by James Earl Graves, III on behalf of Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Graves, James) (Entered: 07/20/2017)
26 MEMORANDUM in Support re 18 MOTION to Strike filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Wallace, Michael) (Entered: 07/20/2017)
27 NOTICE of Service of Initial Disclosure by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 07/26/2017)
28 NOTICE of Service of Pre−Discovery Disclosure by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Wallace, Michael) (Entered: 07/26/2017)
29 NOTICE of Service of Request for Production by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 08/02/2017)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson: Case Management Conference held on 8/8/2017. Appearances: Jonathan Youngwood, Isaac Rethy, Paolma Wu, Janet Gochman, Jade Morgan, Charles Cowan, R ebecca Cowan, James Graves III, Michael Wallace, Charles Ross and Lawson Hester. Court discussed case and pre−discovery issues with counsel. Case Management Order to be entered. (WG) (Entered: 08/09/2017)
30 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER Class certification−related discovery due by 1/16/2018 Motion for class certification due by 1/30/2018 Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 8/9/2017 (WG) (Entered: 08/09/2017)
31 NOTICE of Service of Response to Request for Production by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Cowan, Rebecca) (Entered: 09/01/2017)
32 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER, subject to Local Rule 79. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 9/6/2017. (ACF) (Entered: 09/06/2017)

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 19 of 54

09/22/2017 09/22/2017 09/22/2017 09/22/2017 09/22/2017 09/26/2017
09/27/2017 09/28/2017 09/28/2017 09/28/2017 09/28/2017 09/28/2017 09/28/2017 09/28/2017

33 NOTICE of Service of Interrogatories by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Graves, James) (Entered: 09/22/2017)
34 NOTICE of Service of Request for Production by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Graves, James) (Entered: 09/22/2017)
35 NOTICE of Service of First Set of Interrogatories by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 09/22/2017)
36 NOTICE of Service of Second Set of Request for Production by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 09/22/2017)
37 NOTICE of Service of First Set of Request for Admissions by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 09/22/2017)
38 MOTION for Kavitha Sivashanker to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Paid $100 PHV fee; receipt number 0538−3541873) by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 09/26/2017)
TEXT−ONLY ORDER granting 38 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice of KAVITHA SIVASHANKER as co−counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 9/27/2017. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE. (WG) (Entered: 09/27/2017)
39 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Mark Sandridge by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 09/28/2017)
40 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Jeffery Waldrop by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 09/28/2017)
41 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Barry Chandler by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 09/28/2017)
42 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Tommy Jones by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 09/28/2017)
43 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Terry Barfield by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 09/28/2017)
44 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Rylon Thompson by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 09/28/2017)
45 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Samuel Howard by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 09/28/2017)

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 20 of 54

09/28/2017 09/28/2017 09/28/2017 09/28/2017 09/28/2017 09/28/2017 09/28/2017 09/28/2017 10/04/2017 10/11/2017 10/12/2017 10/12/2017
10/12/2017

46 NOTICE to Take Deposition of James Hall by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 09/28/2017)
47 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Slade Moore by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 09/28/2017)
48 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Darian Smith by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 09/28/2017)
49 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Will Weisenberger by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 09/28/2017)
50 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Trey Baxter by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 09/28/2017)
51 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Paul Griffin by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 09/28/2017)
52 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Jeremy Williams by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 09/28/2017)
53 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Randall Tucker by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 09/28/2017)
54 NOTICE to Take Deposition of 30(b)(6) designee by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 10/04/2017)
NOTICE OF SETTING: Telephonic Discovery Hearing set for 10/17/2017 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson. Jonathan Youngwood to initiate conference call. Telephone number: 601−608−4440. (WG) (Entered: 10/11/2017)
55 NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE SUBPOENA on Jackson Police Department by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Subpoena)(Wu, Paloma) (Attachment 1 replaced on 10/12/2017) (cwl). (Entered: 10/12/2017)
56 NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE SUBPOENA on Hinds County Sheriff's Department by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Subpoena)(Wu, Paloma) (Attachment 1 replaced on 10/12/2017) (cwl). (Entered: 10/12/2017)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to # 55 , 56 : Exhibits attached are on−line fillable forms. Any PDF fillable on−line forms once completed should be electronically converted to PDF by printing to the PDF printer. Save the file with an appropriate name in a folder. E−file the electronically converted PDF form, not the form which was filled in and saved. Clerk has replaced this document so that it may not be modified. Counsel should follow the above procedure in future filings. (cwl) (Entered:

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 21 of 54

10/17/2017
10/20/2017
10/20/2017 10/20/2017 10/21/2017 10/23/2017 10/23/2017 10/23/2017 10/24/2017 10/24/2017
10/25/2017
10/25/2017 10/25/2017
10/25/2017

10/12/2017)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson: Telephonic Discovery Hearing held on 10/17/2017. Participants: Jonathan Youngwood and Michael Wallace. Court heard arguments re discovery disputes. Counsel shall confer and any necessary motions shall be filed by 10/24/17; response due 11/07/17; and reply due 11/14/17. (WG) (Entered: 10/17/2017)
57 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Rylon Thompson, Samuel Howard, Mark Sandridge, Jeffrey Waldrop by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 10/20/2017)
58 NOTICE of Service of Response to Request for Admissions by John Does 1−6, Madison County Sheriff's Deputies, Madison County, Mississippi (Graves, James) (Entered: 10/20/2017)
59 NOTICE of Service of Response to Interrogatories by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Cowan, Rebecca) (Entered: 10/20/2017)
60 First NOTICE of Service of Objection and Response to Interrogatories by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 10/21/2017)
61 NOTICE of Service of Response to Request for Production by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Cowan, Rebecca) (Entered: 10/23/2017)
62 NOTICE of Service of Objection and Response to Interrogatories by Herbert Anthony Green, Marvin McField (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 10/23/2017)
63 NOTICE of Service of Objection and Response to Request for Production by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 10/23/2017)
64 MOTION to Compel by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Good Faith Certificate)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 10/24/2017)
65 ***ERROR***DISREGARD THIS ENTRY. MOTION to Compel Memorandum of Law by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) Modified on 10/25/2017 (cwl). (Entered: 10/24/2017)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to # 65 : Incorrect event chosen. This document should have been docketed as Memorandum in Support of Motion. Attorney is directed to refile using the correct event Memorandum in Support of Motion which is located under the category Responses and Replies. Motion 65 termed. (cwl) (Entered: 10/25/2017)
66 MEMORANDUM in Support re 64 MOTION to Compel filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 10/25/2017)
67 MOTION for Ezekiel Edwards to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Paid $100 PHV fee; receipt number 0538−3563395) by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 10/25/2017)
TEXT−ONLY ORDER granting 67 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice of EZEKIEL EDWARDS as co−counsel for plaintiffs. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 10/25/2017. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE. (WG)

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 22 of 54

10/25/2017
10/25/2017
10/25/2017
10/25/2017
10/30/2017 11/02/2017
11/03/2017 11/03/2017 11/06/2017
11/07/2017 11/09/2017 11/09/2017 11/09/2017 11/09/2017

(Entered: 10/25/2017)
68 NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE SUBPOENA on Canton Police Department by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Subpoena)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 10/25/2017)
69 NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE SUBPOENA on Flora Police Department by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Subpoena)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 10/25/2017)
70 NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE SUBPOENA on Ridgeland Police Department by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Subpoena)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 10/25/2017)
71 NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE SUBPOENA on Toby Trowbridge by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Subpoena)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 10/25/2017)
72 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Tommy Jones and Barry Chandler by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 10/30/2017)
73 MOTION for Brooke Jarrett to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Paid $100 PHV fee; receipt number 0538−3569484) by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Tucker (Tom, Joshua) Modified on 11/3/2017 (cwl). (Entered: 11/02/2017)
TEXT−ONLY ORDER granting 73 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice of BROOKE JARRETT as co−counsel herein. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 11/03/2017. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE. (WG) (Entered: 11/03/2017)
74 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 64 MOTION to Compel filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Declaration by Charles E. Cowan, Esq., # 2 Exhibit 2 − Declaration by Sheriff Randy Tucker)(Wallace, Michael) (Entered: 11/03/2017)
75 NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE SUBPOENA Toby Trowbridge by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amended Subpoena)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 11/06/2017)
76 MOTION to Quash Subpeona by Town of Flora Police Department (Gault, William) (Entered: 11/07/2017)
77 RESPONSE in Opposition re 64 MOTION to Compel filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Chief Jeremy Williams Deposition Excerpt)(Wallace, Michael) (Entered: 11/09/2017)
78 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Nicholas Singleton by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Graves, James) (Entered: 11/09/2017)
79 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Steven Smith by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Graves, James) (Entered: 11/09/2017)
80 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Latoya Brown by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Graves, James) (Entered: 11/09/2017)

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 23 of 54

11/09/2017 11/09/2017 11/09/2017 11/09/2017 11/09/2017 11/09/2017 11/09/2017 11/09/2017
11/09/2017
11/10/2017 11/13/2017
11/14/2017
11/14/2017
11/14/2017
11/14/2017
11/14/2017
11/14/2017

81 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Khadafy Manning by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Graves, James) (Entered: 11/09/2017)
82 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Quinnetta Manning by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Graves, James) (Entered: 11/09/2017)
83 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Herbert Anthony Green by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Graves, James) (Entered: 11/09/2017)
84 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Marvin McField by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Graves, James) (Entered: 11/09/2017)
85 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Bessie Thomas by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Graves, James) (Entered: 11/09/2017)
86 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Betty Jean Williams Tucker by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Graves, James) (Entered: 11/09/2017)
87 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Lawrence Blackmon by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Graves, James) (Entered: 11/09/2017)
88 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Terry Barfield, Mark Sandridge, Jeffery Waldrop by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 11/09/2017)
89 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Todd Wilson, Elton Flax by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 11/09/2017)
90 NOTICE of Service of Supplemental Objection and Response to Interrogatories by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 11/10/2017)
91 REPLY to Response to Motion re 64 MOTION to Compel filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 11/13/2017)
92 NOTICE of Receipt of Deposition of Barry Chandler by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 11/14/2017)
93 NOTICE of Receipt of Deposition of Tommy Jones by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 11/14/2017)
94 NOTICE of Receipt of Deposition of 30(b)(6) Jeremy Williams and Ed Henry by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 11/14/2017)
95 NOTICE of Receipt of Deposition of Rylon Thompson by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 11/14/2017)
96 NOTICE of Receipt of Deposition of Samuel Howard by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 11/14/2017)
97 NOTICE of Service of Supplemental Objection and Response to Interrogatories by Herbert Anthony Green, Nicholas Singleton, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom,

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 24 of 54

11/17/2017
11/17/2017 11/21/2017 11/22/2017
11/22/2017 11/22/2017 11/22/2017 11/22/2017 11/22/2017 11/22/2017 11/22/2017 11/22/2017 11/22/2017

Joshua) (Entered: 11/14/2017)
98 MOTION for Leave to File Sur−Reply in Further Support of Their Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1: Proposed Sur−Reply, # 2 Exhibit 2: 30(b)(6) Deposition Excerpts of Chief Deputy Jeremy Williams, # 3 Exhibit 3: Sample Incident Report MC−RFP−Inc. Rep. 003579 (To Be Filed Conventionally Under Seal))(Cowan, Charles) (Entered: 11/17/2017)
99 MEMORANDUM in Support re 98 MOTION for Leave to File Sur−Reply in Further Support of Their Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Cowan, Charles) (Entered: 11/17/2017)
100 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Exhibit Under Seal by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Cowan, Charles) (Entered: 11/21/2017)
101 RESPONSE in Opposition re 98 MOTION for Leave to File Sur−Reply in Further Support of Their Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 11/22/2017)
102 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 98 MOTION for Leave to File Sur−Reply in Further Support of Their Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 11/22/2017)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting unopposed 100 Motion for leave to file Exhibit 3 to PDF 98 with restricted access. The Clerk shall restrict access to the exhibit from the public; sensitive information with SS numbers, DOBs in exhibit. NO WRITTEN ORDER TO FOLLOW. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 11/22/2017. (ACF) (Entered: 11/22/2017)
103 MOTION to Seal Exhibits in Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Sur−Reply by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 11/22/2017)
104 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Bradley Sullivan by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 11/22/2017)
105 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Will Weisenberger, Slade Moore, Darian Smith by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 11/22/2017)
TEXT ONLY AGREED ORDER granting Plaintiffs until 12/5/2017 to respond to non−party Town of Flora Police Department's Motion to Quash 76 . NO WRITTEN ORDER TO FOLLOW. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 11/22/2017. (ACF) (Entered: 11/22/2017)
106 *RESTRICTED* DOCUMENT [Exhibit "3"] 98 MOTION for Leave to File Sur−Reply in Further Support of Their Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (cwl) (Entered: 11/22/2017)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #101: L.U.Civ.R. 7(b)(2) requires that all supporting exhibits to a document be denominated by an exhibit letter or number AND a meaningful description. Attorney is advised to follow this rule in future filings. (cwl) (Entered: 11/22/2017)
107 NOTICE of Service of Second Set of Interrogatories by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Wallace, Michael) (Entered: 11/22/2017)

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 25 of 54

11/22/2017 11/27/2017 11/27/2017
11/28/2017 11/28/2017
11/28/2017 12/01/2017 12/01/2017 12/01/2017 12/01/2017 12/01/2017
12/05/2017 12/05/2017 12/07/2017

108 NOTICE of Service of Second Set of Request for Production by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Wallace, Michael) (Entered: 11/22/2017)
NOTICE OF HEARING: Telephonic Discovery Hearing set for 11/28/2017 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson. Jonathan Youngwood to initiate conference call. Telephone number: 601−608−4440. (WG) (Entered: 11/27/2017)
109 MOTION for Jumin Lee to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Paid $100 PHV fee; receipt number 0538−3584166) by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 11/27/2017)
TEXT−ONLY ORDER granting 109 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice of JUMIN LEE as co−counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 11/28/2017. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE. (WG) (Entered: 11/28/2017)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson: Telephonic Discovery Hearing held on 11/28/2017. Participants: Jonathan Youngwood, Joshua Tom, Yukin Chan, Nihara Choudhri, Isaac Rethy, Kavitha Sivashanker, Rebecca Cowan, James Graves, III, Russell Nobile and Charles Ross, kand Michael Wallace. The Court heard arguments re discovery disputes. Counsel will advise the Court NLT 12/01/2017 what issues remain in dispute. Court also granted 103 Motion to Seal. (WG) (Entered: 11/28/2017)
TEXT−ONLY ORDER granting 103 Motion to Seal with restricted access. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 11/28/2017. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE. (WG) (Entered: 11/28/2017)
110 NOTICE of Receipt of Deposition of Mark Sandridge by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 12/01/2017)
111 NOTICE of Receipt of Deposition of Elton FLax, Jr. by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 12/01/2017)
112 NOTICE of Receipt of Deposition of Todd Wilson by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 12/01/2017)
113 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Tommy Squires and James Hall by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 12/01/2017)
114 REPLY to Response to Motion re 98 MOTION for Leave to File Sur−Reply in Further Support of Their Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 − Incident No. SO16012643, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2 − Incident No. SO16013399, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3 − Incident No. SO16011760, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4 − Incident No. SO16011767, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5 − Incident No. SO16011781)(Wallace, Michael) (Entered: 12/01/2017)
115 Unopposed MOTION to Seal for Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Cowan, Charles) (Entered: 12/05/2017)
116 NOTICE of Withdrawal by Town of Flora Police Department re 76 MOTION to Quash Subpeona (Gault, William) (Entered: 12/05/2017)
117 NOTICE of Receipt of Deposition of Darian Smith by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 12/07/2017)

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 26 of 54

12/07/2017 12/07/2017 12/07/2017 12/07/2017 12/07/2017 12/07/2017 12/11/2017 12/11/2017 12/11/2017 12/12/2017 12/12/2017 12/13/2017 12/13/2017 12/15/2017 12/15/2017
12/15/2017

118 NOTICE of Receipt of Deposition of Brad Sullivan by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 12/07/2017)
119 NOTICE of Receipt of Deposition of Slade Moore by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 12/07/2017)
120 NOTICE of Receipt of Deposition of Will Weisenberger by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 12/07/2017)
121 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Trey Baxter by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 12/07/2017)
122 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Jeremy Williams by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 12/07/2017)
123 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Randall Tucker by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 12/07/2017)
124 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Bessie Thomas by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Graves, James) (Entered: 12/11/2017)
125 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Betty Jean Williams Tucker by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Graves, James) (Entered: 12/11/2017)
126 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Quinnetta Manning by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Graves, James) (Entered: 12/11/2017)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 115 Motion to restrict access from the public; personal information contained in exhibits. NO WRITTEN ORDER TO FOLLOW. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 12/12/2017. (ACF) (Entered: 12/12/2017)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying as moot 76 Motion to Quash; withdrawn by movant, the Town of Flora Police Department. NO WRITTEN ORDER TO FOLLOW. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 12/12/2017. (ACF) (Entered: 12/12/2017)
127 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Nicholas Singleton by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Graves, James) (Entered: 12/13/2017)
128 NOTICE of Service of Objection and Response to Interrogatories by Bessie Thomas (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 12/13/2017)
NOTICE OF SETTING: Per request and representations of counsel Telephonic Discovery Conference set for 12/20/2017 01:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson. Jonathan Youngwood to initiate conference call. Telephone number: 601−608−4440. (WG) (Entered: 12/15/2017)
129 ***ERROR***DISREGARD THIS ENTRY. MOTION to Seal Document 98 MOTION for Leave to File Sur−Reply in Further Support of Their Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel , MOTION to Seal Notice of Conventional Filing Under Seal by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Cowan, Charles) Modified on 12/19/2017 (cwl). (Entered: 12/15/2017)
130 NOTICE of Service of Second Set of Interrogatories by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 12/15/2017)

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 27 of 54

12/15/2017 12/15/2017 12/15/2017 12/18/2017 12/18/2017 12/19/2017 12/19/2017 12/21/2017 12/22/2017 12/22/2017 12/22/2017 12/22/2017 12/22/2017

131 NOTICE of Service of Third Set of Request for Production by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 12/15/2017)
134 EXHIBITS 1−5 (RESTRICTED) Related document: 114 Reply to Response to Motion,re 98 MOTION for Leave to File Sur−Reply in Further Support of Their Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel filed by Defendant Madison County, Mississippi, Defendant Randall S. Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2, # 2 Exhibit 3, # 3 Exhibit 4, # 4 Exhibit 5)(cwl) Modified on 12/19/2017 (cwl). (Entered: 12/19/2017)
135 NOTICE OF CONVENTIONAL FILING filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker, re EXHIBITS 1−5 (RESTRICTED) Related document: 114 Reply to Response to Motion, re 98 MOTION for Leave to File Sur−Reply in Further Support of Their Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel. (cwl) Modified on 12/19/2017 (cwl). (Entered: 12/19/2017)
132 NOTICE of Receipt of Deposition of Jeremy Williams by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Cover Sheet))(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 12/18/2017)
133 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Paloma Wu by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Wu, Paloma) (Entered: 12/18/2017)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to # 129 Incorrect pdf attached. Attorney is directed to refile. Motion 129 termed. (cwl) (Entered: 12/19/2017)
TEXT−ONLY ORDER granting 133 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Paloma Wu terminated for plaintiffs. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 12/19/2017. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE. (WG) (Entered: 12/19/2017)
136 NOTICE of Receipt of Deposition of Trey Baxter by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Cover Sheet))(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 12/21/2017)
137 RESPONSE in Support re 18 MOTION to Strike filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Deposition of Trey Baxter)(Wallace, Michael) (Entered: 12/22/2017)
138 MOTION for Leave to Serve Subpoena by Alternate Means by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Good Faith Certificate)(Tom, Joshua) Modified on 12/27/2017 (cwl). (Entered: 12/22/2017)
139 MEMORANDUM in Support re 138 MOTION for Leave to Serve Subpoena by Alternate Means filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Due Diligence)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 12/22/2017)
140 NOTICE of Service of Objection and Response to Interrogatories by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 12/22/2017)
141 NOTICE of Service of Objection and Response to Request for Production by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 12/22/2017)

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 28 of 54

12/22/2017
12/22/2017
12/27/2017
12/27/2017 12/27/2017 12/28/2017 12/28/2017 12/28/2017 12/28/2017 12/28/2017 01/02/2018 01/03/2018 01/03/2018 01/05/2018
01/05/2018 01/05/2018

142 MOTION to Extend Class Certification Discovery and Motion for Class Certification Deadline by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Good Faith Certificate)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 12/22/2017)
143 MEMORANDUM in Support re 142 MOTION to Extend Class Certification Discovery and Motion for Class Certification Deadline filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit ESI Stipulation)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 12/22/2017)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson: Telephonic Discovery Conference held on 12/27/2017. Appearances: Jonathan Youngwood, Joshua Tom, Nihard Choudhri, Isaac Rethy, Rebecca Cowan, Charles Cowan, Russell Nobile, Charles Ross and Michael Wallace. The CAD Report with unredacted address information shall be produced not later than 12/28/2017. Proposed Order to be submitted by Jonathan Youngwood. (WG) (Entered: 12/27/2017)
144 ORDER re: telephonic hearing conducted 12/20/2017; granting 64 Motion to Compel to the extent set forth herein. 98 Motion for Leave to File sur−reply granted. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 12/27/2017. (ACF) (Entered: 12/27/2017)
145 RESPONSE in Opposition re 18 MOTION to Strike filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 12/27/2017)
146 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Khadady Manning by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Graves, James) (Entered: 12/28/2017)
147 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Lawrence Blackmon by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Graves, James) (Entered: 12/28/2017)
148 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Marvin McField by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Graves, James) (Entered: 12/28/2017)
149 NOTICE of Service of Supplemental Disclosure by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Cowan, Rebecca) (Entered: 12/28/2017)
150 NOTICE of Service of Supplemental Initial Disclosure by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 12/28/2017)
151 RESPONSE in Opposition re 138 MOTION for Leave to Serve Subpoena by Alternate Means filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Wallace, Michael) (Entered: 01/02/2018)
152 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Steven Smith by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Graves, James) (Entered: 01/03/2018)
153 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Latoya Brown by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Graves, James) (Entered: 01/03/2018)
154 REPLY to Response to Motion re 151 Response in Opposition to Motion, 138 MOTION for Leave to Serve Subpoena by Alternate Means filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 01/05/2018)
155 NOTICE of Appearance by J. Lawson Hester on behalf of Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Hester, J.) (Entered: 01/05/2018)
156 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Paul Griffin by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 01/05/2018)

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 29 of 54

01/05/2018
01/08/2018 01/08/2018 01/08/2018 01/08/2018 01/09/2018 01/10/2018 01/12/2018 01/12/2018 01/12/2018
01/16/2018 01/16/2018 01/17/2018 01/18/2018 01/26/2018

157 RESPONSE in Opposition re 142 MOTION to Extend Class Certification Discovery and Motion for Class Certification Deadline filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Filed Under Seal, # 2 Exhibit 2 − September 2017 email exchange, # 3 Exhibit 3 − 10/25/2017 email from Charles Cowan to Isaac Rethy, # 4 Exhibit 4 − 11/7/2017 email from Charles Cowan to Isaac Rethy, # 5 Exhibit 5 − 12/13/2017 email from Isaac Rethy, # 6 Exhibit 6 − 10/2/2017 email from Kavitha Sivashanker)(Wallace, Michael) (Entered: 01/05/2018)
158 ATTACHMENT re 157 Response in Opposition to Motion,, Exhibit 6 − 10/2/2017 Email with search terms list by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Wallace, Michael) (Entered: 01/08/2018)
159 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Herbert Anthony Green by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Graves, James) (Entered: 01/08/2018)
160 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Josh Fish by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 01/08/2018)
161 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Paul Griffin by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 01/08/2018)
162 ATTACHMENT re 157 Response in Opposition to Motion,, Exhibit 1 − 11/17/2016 email exchange by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Wallace, Michael) (Entered: 01/09/2018)
163 NOTICE of Service of Plaintiff Lawrence Blackmon's Second Supplemental Objections and Response to Interrogatories by Lawrence Blackmon (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 01/10/2018)
164 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Yukiu Chan by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 01/12/2018)
165 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Herbert Anthony Green by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Graves, James) (Entered: 01/12/2018)
166 REPLY to Response to Motion re 142 MOTION to Extend Class Certification Discovery and Motion for Class Certification Deadline filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Sheriff Tucker Transcript, # 2 Exhibit 2 Jump Out Report, # 3 Affidavit Bryan Ricchetti)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 01/12/2018)
167 NOTICE of Service of Response to Interrogatories by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Cowan, Rebecca) (Entered: 01/16/2018)
168 NOTICE of Service of Objection and Response to Interrogatories by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 01/16/2018)
TEXT−ONLY ORDER granting 164 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Yukiu Chan − PHV terminated as co−counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 1/17/2018. No further written order will issue. (WG) (Entered: 01/17/2018)
169 ORDER granting 142 Motion to Extend Deadlines to the extent set forth herein; good cause shown. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 1/18/2018. (ACF) (Entered: 01/18/2018)
170 NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE SUBPOENA upon Perie Freeman by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered:

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 30 of 54

01/26/2018
01/26/2018 01/29/2018 01/29/2018
01/29/2018 01/29/2018
01/30/2018 02/02/2018 02/05/2018 02/07/2018 02/12/2018 02/12/2018 02/13/2018 02/14/2018 02/14/2018

01/26/2018)
171 NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE SUBPOENA upon Angela Lyons by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 01/26/2018)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Telephone Conference set for 1/29/2018 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson. (ACF) (Entered: 01/26/2018)
Pro Hac Vice fee paid for Christopher K. Shields receipt number 0538−3624363 $ 100 (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 01/29/2018)
172 MOTION for Christopher K. Shields to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit in Response to Question B, # 2 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 01/29/2018)
173 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Brian Loveall, Jason Barnes, Scott McDonald by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 01/29/2018)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson: Telephonic Conference held on 1/29/2018 re 138 MOTION for Leave to Serve Subpoena by Alternate Means filed by Herbert Anthony Green, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Bessie Thomas, Khadafy Manning, Betty Jean Williams Tucker, Steven Smith, Latoya Brown, Lawrence Blackmon, Quinnetta Manning. Court heard argument of counsel. Order forthcoming. Participants: Jonathan Youngwood, Joshua Tom, Nihara Choudri, Charles Cowan, Rebecca Cowan, Russell Nobile, James Graves III, Michael Wallace, Charles Ross and Isaac Rethy. (WG) (Entered: 01/29/2018)
TEXT−ONLY ORDER granting 172 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Christopher K. Shields. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 1/30/2018. No further written order will issue. (WG) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
174 ORDER granting 138 Motion for service of subpoena by alternative means. The United States Marshals Service is directed to serve the Rule 45 deposition subpoena on Mr. Trowbridge, upon submission of proper fees. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 2/2/2018. (ACF) (Entered: 02/02/2018)
175 ATTACHMENT (EXHIBIT A − SUBPOENA) re 174 Order on Motion for Service of Subpoena. (PKM) (Entered: 02/05/2018)
176 NOTICE of Service of Second Supplemental Initial Disclosure by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 02/07/2018)
177 Subpoena Returned Executed as to Toby Trowbridge. (VM) (Entered: 02/12/2018)
178 Response in Opposition re 175 ATTACHMENT (EXHIBIT A − SUBPOENA) re 174 Order on Motion for Service of Subpoena. (PKM) filed by Toby Trowbridge (Pedersen, Robert) (Entered: 02/12/2018)
179 NOTICE of Service of Third Supplemental Initial Disclosure by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 02/13/2018)
180 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Cowan, Rebecca) (Entered: 02/14/2018)
181 MEMORANDUM in Support re 180 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−Ltr to Youngwood (Marvin McField))(Cowan, Rebecca) (Entered: 02/14/2018)

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 31 of 54

02/14/2018 02/14/2018 02/15/2018 02/15/2018 02/15/2018 02/15/2018 02/15/2018 02/15/2018
02/15/2018 02/15/2018 02/15/2018 02/15/2018

182 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution (Herbert Green) by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Cowan, Rebecca) (Entered: 02/14/2018)
183 MEMORANDUM in Support re 182 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution (Herbert Green) filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1− 1 14 18 email from Rethy to defense counsel)(Cowan, Rebecca) (Entered: 02/14/2018)
184 NOTICE of Receipt of Deposition of Randy Tucker by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Cover Sheet)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 02/15/2018)
185 NOTICE of Receipt of Deposition of Josh Fish by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Cover Sheet)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 02/15/2018)
186 NOTICE of Receipt of Deposition of Paul Griffin by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Cover Sheet)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 02/15/2018)
187 NOTICE of Receipt of Deposition of James Hall by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Cover Sheet)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 02/15/2018)
188 NOTICE of Receipt of Deposition of Tommy Squires by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Cover Sheet)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 02/15/2018)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to # 184 , 185 , 186 , 187 , and 188 . Inconsistent Attorney Signature: Pursuant to the Administrative Procedures for Electronic Case Filing Section 2.C. and FED.R.Civ.P.11 an attorney's password issued by the court combined with the user's identification (login) serves as the attorney's signature for Rule 11 and other purposes. The Certificate of Service in Documents # 184 , 185 , 186 , 187 , and 188 is inconsistent with attorney login. The Certificates of Service will be disregarded and the attorney with the electronic signature on the documents should re−file said documents using the Certificate of Service Event and link each Certificate of Service back to the original document. (VM) (Entered: 02/15/2018)
189 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker re 184 Notice of Receipt of Deposition, Randy Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 02/15/2018)
190 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker re 185 Notice of Receipt of Deposition, Josh Fish (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 02/15/2018)
191 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker re 186 Notice of Receipt of Deposition, Paul Griffin (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 02/15/2018)
192 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker re 187 Notice of Receipt of Deposition, James Hall (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 02/15/2018)

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 32 of 54

02/15/2018 02/16/2018 02/16/2018 02/20/2018
02/20/2018
02/23/2018 02/23/2018 02/26/2018 02/26/2018 02/27/2018 02/28/2018
02/28/2018
02/28/2018
02/28/2018

193 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker re 188 Notice of Receipt of Deposition, Tommy Squires (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 02/15/2018)
194 NOTICE of Service of Supplemental Response to Interrogatories by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Wallace, Michael) (Entered: 02/16/2018)
195 NOTICE of Service of Objection and Response to Interrogatories by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 02/16/2018)
196 NOTICE of Receipt of Deposition of James Barnes by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Cover Sheet)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 02/20/2018)
197 NOTICE of Receipt of Deposition of Brian Loveall by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Cover Sheet)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 02/20/2018)
198 MOTION to Strike Plaintiff Betty Jean Williams Tucker's Deposition Errata Sheet by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Tucker Deposition Excerpts, # 2 Exhibit B − Email from Kavitha Sivashanker, # 3 Exhibit C − Tucker Deposition Errata Sheet)(Wallace, Michael) (Entered: 02/23/2018)
199 MEMORANDUM in Support re 198 MOTION to Strike Plaintiff Betty Jean Williams Tucker's Deposition Errata Sheet filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Wallace, Michael) (Entered: 02/23/2018)
200 Joint MOTION For Entry of Stipulated Scheduling Order by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 02/26/2018)
201 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Class Certification Briefing by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 02/26/2018)
202 ORDER granting 200 Motion for Entry of Stipulated Scheduling Order Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 2/27/2018 (WG) (Entered: 02/27/2018)
203 RESPONSE in Opposition re 182 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution (Herbert Green) filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 02/28/2018)
204 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 182 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution (Herbert Green) filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 02/28/2018)
205 RESPONSE in Opposition re 180 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution (Marvin McField) filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 02/28/2018)
206 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 180 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution (Marvin McField) filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton,

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 33 of 54

03/06/2018 03/07/2018 03/07/2018 03/07/2018 03/07/2018 03/07/2018 03/07/2018 03/07/2018 03/07/2018 03/09/2018
03/09/2018
03/09/2018
03/12/2018

Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 02/28/2018)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 201 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Each party may submit a total of 70 pages of briefing on Class Certification. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE. Signed by District Judge William H. Barbour, Jr on 3/6/18 (Lewis, Nijah) (Entered: 03/06/2018)
207 Rebuttal re 181 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 180 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution (Marvin McField) filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Cowan, Rebecca) (Entered: 03/07/2018)
208 Rebuttal re 182 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution (Herbert Green), 183 Memorandum in Support of Motion, filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Cowan, Rebecca) (Entered: 03/07/2018)
209 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Individual Class Based Claims of Plaintiff, LaToya Brown by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Cowan, Rebecca) (Entered: 03/07/2018)
210 MEMORANDUM in Support re 209 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Individual Class Based Claims of Plaintiff, LaToya Brown filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Cowan, Rebecca) (Entered: 03/07/2018)
211 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Individual and Class Based Claims of Plaintiff, Steven Smith by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Cowan, Rebecca) (Entered: 03/07/2018)
212 MEMORANDUM in Support re 211 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Individual and Class Based Claims of Plaintiff, Steven Smith filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Cowan, Rebecca) (Entered: 03/07/2018)
213 Unopposed MOTION to Seal Document 210 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 209 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Individual Class Based Claims of Plaintiff, LaToya Brown by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Cowan, Rebecca) (Entered: 03/07/2018)
214 Unopposed MOTION to Seal Document 211 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Individual and Class Based Claims of Plaintiff, Steven Smith, 212 Memorandum in Support of Motion by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Cowan, Rebecca) (Entered: 03/07/2018)
215 ORDER denying, without prejudice, 213 Motion to Seal Document; denying 214 Motion to Seal Document. Motions of Defendants to Seal [Docket Nos. 213 and 214] are hereby denied, without prejudice, thereby permitting Defendants to re−file their Motions to Seal in the manner prescribed by Local Rule 79(e)(3). Signed by District Judge William H. Barbour, Jr on 3/9/18 (Lewis, Nijah) (Entered: 03/09/2018)
216 RESPONSE to Motion re 198 MOTION to Strike Plaintiff Betty Jean Williams Tucker's Deposition Errata Sheet filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 03/09/2018)
217 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 198 MOTION to Strike Plaintiff Betty Jean Williams Tucker's Deposition Errata Sheet filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Reasons for Changes on Errata Sheet, # 2 Exhibit B Reynolds Errata Sheet)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 03/09/2018)
218 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Individual and Class Based Claims by Plaintiff Betty Jean Williams Tucker by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Tucker Deposition Transcript Excerpts, # 2 Exhibit B − Plaintiff Betty Jean Williams Tucker's Second Supplemental Responses and Objections to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories)(Wallace, Michael) (Entered: 03/12/2018)

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 34 of 54

03/12/2018 03/12/2018 03/12/2018 03/12/2018 03/12/2018 03/13/2018 03/13/2018 03/14/2018
03/14/2018

219 MEMORANDUM in Support re 218 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Individual and Class Based Claims by Plaintiff Betty Jean Williams Tucker filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Wallace, Michael) (Entered: 03/12/2018)
220 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Plaintiff Bessie Thomas's Responses and Objections to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories, # 2 Exhibit B − Excerpts from Bessie Thomas's Deposition, # 3 Exhibit C − Plaintiff Bessie Thomas's Second Supplemental Responses and Objections to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories)(Graves, James) (Entered: 03/12/2018)
221 MEMORANDUM in Support re 220 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Graves, James) (Entered: 03/12/2018)
222 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Excerpts from Nicholas Singleton Deposition, # 2 Exhibit B − Plaintiff Nicholas Singleton's Second Supplemental Responses and Objections to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories)(Graves, James) (Entered: 03/12/2018)
223 MEMORANDUM in Support re 222 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Graves, James) (Entered: 03/12/2018)
224 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File REVISED MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF [DKT. #209] MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO INDIVIDUAL AND CLASS BASED CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFF, LATOYA BROWN by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Cowan, Rebecca) (Entered: 03/13/2018)
225 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File REVISED MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF [DKT. #211] MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO INDIVIDUAL AND CLASS BASED CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFF, STEVEN SMITH by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Cowan, Rebecca) (Entered: 03/13/2018)
226 **ERROR**Disregard this entry. MOTION to Certify Class by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23, # 24 Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 25, # 26 Exhibit 26, # 27 Exhibit 27, # 28 Exhibit 28, # 29 Exhibit 29, # 30 Exhibit 30, # 31 Exhibit 31, # 32 Exhibit 32, # 33 Exhibit 33, # 34 Exhibit 34, # 35 Exhibit 35, # 36 Exhibit 36, # 37 Exhibit 37, # 38 Exhibit 38, # 39 Exhibit 39, # 40 Exhibit 40, # 41 Exhibit 41, # 42 Exhibit 42, # 43 Exhibit 43, # 44 Exhibit 44, # 45 Exhibit 45, # 46 Exhibit 46, # 47 Exhibit 47, # 48 Exhibit 48, # 49 Exhibit 49, # 50 Exhibit 50, # 51 Exhibit 51, # 52 Exhibit 52, # 53 Exhibit 53, # 54 Exhibit 54, # 55 Exhibit 55, # 56 Exhibit 56, # 57 Exhibit 57, # 58 Exhibit 58, # 59 Exhibit 59, # 60 Exhibit 60, # 61 Exhibit 61, # 62 Exhibit 62, # 63 Exhibit 63, # 64 Exhibit 64, # 65 Exhibit 65, # 66 Exhibit 66, # 67 Exhibit 67, # 68 Exhibit 68, # 69 Exhibit 69, # 70 Exhibit 70, # 71 Exhibit 71, # 72 Exhibit 72, # 73 Exhibit 73, # 74 Exhibit 74, # 75 Exhibit 75, # 76 Exhibit 76, # 77 Exhibit 77, # 78 Exhibit 78, # 79 Exhibit 79, # 80 Exhibit 80, # 81 Exhibit 81, # 82 Exhibit 82, # 83 Exhibit 83, # 84 Exhibit 84, # 85 Exhibit 85, # 86 Exhibit 86, # 87 Exhibit 87, # 88 Exhibit 88, # 89 Exhibit 89, # 90 Exhibit 90, # 91 Exhibit 91, # 92 Exhibit 92, # 93 Exhibit 93, # 94 Exhibit 94, # 95 Exhibit 95, # 96 Exhibit 96, # 97 Exhibit 97, # 98 Exhibit 98, # 99 Exhibit 99, # 100 Exhibit 100, # 101 Exhibit 101, # 102 Exhibit 102, # 103 Exhibit 103, # 104 Exhibit 104, # 105 Exhibit 105, # 106 Exhibit 106, # 107 Exhibit 107, # 108 Exhibit 108, # 109 Exhibit 109, # 110 Exhibit 110, # 111 Exhibit 111, # 112 Exhibit 112, # 113 Exhibit 113)(Youngwood − PHV, Jonathan) Modified on 3/14/2018 (VM). (Entered: 03/14/2018)
227 **ERROR**Disregard this entry. MEMORANDUM in Support re 226 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green,

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 35 of 54

03/14/2018 03/14/2018 03/14/2018 03/14/2018 03/14/2018
03/14/2018 03/14/2018

Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Youngwood − PHV, Jonathan) Modified on 3/14/2018 (VM). (Entered: 03/14/2018)
228 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Plaintiff Lawrence Blackmon's Third Supplemental Responses and Objections to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Affidavit of Scott McDonald, # 3 Exhibit 3 − Excerpts from Lawrence Blackmon Deposition)(Graves, James) (Entered: 03/14/2018)
229 MEMORANDUM in Support re 228 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Graves, James) (Entered: 03/14/2018)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to 226 and 227 . Pursuant to the Administrative Procedures for Electronic Case Filing Section 2.C. and FED.R.Civ.P.11 an attorney's password issued by the court combined with the user's identification (login) serves as the attorney's signature for Rule 11 and other purposes. Attorneys should not permit other attorneys to use their login and password for any ECF filing. Documents 226 and 227 will be disregarded and the attorney with the electronic signature on the documents should re−file said documents. (VM) (Entered: 03/14/2018)
230 ORDER granting 224 Motion for Leave to File; granting 225 Motion for Leave to File. Defendants are hereby granted leave of Court to file Revised Memoranda in Support of their [Dkt. #209 and #211] Motions for Summary Judgment as to Individual and Class Based Claims of Plaintiffs, Latoya Brown and Steven Smith. The Revised Memoranda shall be filed on or before March 21, 2018. Signed by District Judge William H. Barbour, Jr on 3/14/18 (Lewis, Nijah) (Entered: 03/14/2018)
231 MOTION to Certify Class by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23, # 24 Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 25, # 26 Exhibit 26, # 27 Exhibit 27, # 28 Exhibit 28, # 29 Exhibit 29, # 30 Exhibit 30, # 31 Exhibit 31, # 32 Exhibit 32, # 33 Exhibit 33, # 34 Exhibit 34, # 35 Exhibit 35, # 36 Exhibit 36, # 37 Exhibit 37, # 38 Exhibit 38, # 39 Exhibit 39, # 40 Exhibit 40, # 41 Exhibit 41, # 42 Exhibit 42, # 43 Exhibit 43, # 44 Exhibit 44, # 45 Exhibit 45, # 46 Exhibit 46, # 47 Exhibit 47, # 48 Exhibit 48, # 49 Exhibit 49, # 50 Exhibit 50, # 51 Exhibit 51, # 52 Exhibit 52, # 53 Exhibit 53, # 54 Exhibit 54, # 55 Exhibit 55, # 56 Exhibit 56, # 57 Exhibit 57, # 58 Exhibit 58, # 59 Exhibit 59, # 60 Exhibit 60, # 61 Exhibit 61, # 62 Exhibit 62, # 63 Exhibit 63, # 64 Exhibit 64, # 65 Exhibit 65, # 66 Exhibit 66, # 67 Exhibit 67, # 68 Exhibit 68, # 69 Exhibit 69, # 70 Exhibit 70, # 71 Exhibit 71, # 72 Exhibit 72, # 73 Exhibit 73, # 74 Exhibit 74, # 75 Exhibit 75, # 76 Exhibit 76, # 77 Exhibit 77, # 78 Exhibit 78, # 79 Exhibit 79, # 80 Exhibit 80, # 81 Exhibit 81, # 82 Exhibit 82, # 83 Exhibit 83, # 84 Exhibit 84, # 85 Exhibit 85, # 86 Exhibit 86, # 87 Exhibit 87, # 88 Exhibit 88, # 89 Exhibit 89, # 90 Exhibit 90, # 91 Exhibit 91, # 92 Exhibit 92, # 93 Exhibit 93, # 94 Exhibit 94, # 95 Exhibit 95, # 96 Exhibit 96, # 97 Exhibit 97, # 98 Exhibit 98, # 99 Exhibit 99, # 100 Exhibit 100, # 101 Exhibit 101, # 102 Exhibit 102, # 103 Exhibit 103, # 104 Exhibit 104, # 105 Exhibit 105, # 106 Exhibit 106, # 107 Exhibit 107, # 108 Exhibit 108, # 109 Exhibit 109, # 110 Exhibit 110, # 111 Exhibit 111, # 112 Exhibit 112, # 113 Exhibit 113)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 03/14/2018)
232 MEMORANDUM in Support re 231 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 03/14/2018)
233 MEMORANDUM in Support re 209 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Individual Class Based Claims of Plaintiff, LaToya Brown (Revised) filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Deposition Transcript of Latoya Brown, # 2 Exhibit B Supplemental Responses and Objections to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories by Latoya Brown)(Cowan, Rebecca) (Entered:

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 36 of 54

03/14/2018
03/14/2018 03/14/2018 03/14/2018 03/14/2018 03/15/2018 03/15/2018 03/15/2018 03/16/2018 03/16/2018 03/16/2018 03/16/2018 03/20/2018

03/14/2018)
234 MEMORANDUM in Support re 211 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Individual and Class Based Claims of Plaintiff, Steven Smith (Revised) filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Deposition Transcript of Steven Smith, # 2 Exhibit B Supplemental Responses and Objections to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories by Steven Smith)(Cowan, Rebecca) (Entered: 03/14/2018)
235 Unopposed MOTION to Seal as Restricted Portions of Certain Exhibits by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 03/14/2018)
236 MEMORANDUM in Support re 235 Unopposed MOTION to Seal as Restricted Portions of Certain Exhibits filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 03/14/2018)
237 MOTION to Deny Class Certification by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Wallace, Michael) (Entered: 03/14/2018)
238 MEMORANDUM in Support re 237 MOTION to Deny Class Certification filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Wallace, Michael) (Entered: 03/14/2018)
239 ORDER granting 235 Motion to Seal. The redacted portions of Exhibits 3, 10 and 89 to Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification found at ECF Nos. 231−3, 231−10, and 231−89 are restricted from public access, with CM/ECF access to these unredacted exhibits limited to Plaintiffs' and Defendants' counsel in this case. Signed by District Judge William H. Barbour, Jr on 3/15/2018 (Lewis, Nijah) (Entered: 03/15/2018)
240 NOTICE OF CONVENTIONAL FILING in re 231 Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, Exhibits 3, 10, and 89, filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (VM) (Entered: 03/15/2018)
241 *RESTRICTED* DOCUMENTS re 231 MOTION to Certify Class − Exhibit 3; Attachments # 1 Exhibit 10, # 2 Exhibit 89, filed by Herbert Anthony Green, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Bessie Thomas, Khadafy Manning, Betty Jean Williams Tucker, Steven Smith, Latoya Brown, Lawrence Blackmon, Quinnetta Manning. (VM) (Entered: 03/15/2018)
242 ORDER denying 18 Motion to Strike; granting 180 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution; granting 182 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution. The claims alleged by Plaintiffs Marvin McField and Herbert Anthony Green are hereby dismissed, without prejudice. Signed by District Judge William H. Barbour, Jr on 3/16/18 (Lewis, Nijah) (Entered: 03/16/2018)
243 Joint MOTION to Extend Deadline for Time to Respond and Reply by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Proposed Order)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 03/16/2018)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to # 243 Proposed orders are not to be electronically filed as a separate pleading or as an attachment to a pleading, but instead are to be provided to chambers by e−mail (Court's Administrative Procedures for Electronic Case Filing Sec.5.B.). (cwl) (Entered: 03/16/2018)
244 Rebuttal re 198 MOTION to Strike Plaintiff Betty Jean Williams Tucker's Deposition Errata Sheet filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Nobile, T.) (Entered: 03/16/2018)
245 MOTION for Status Conference by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 03/20/2018)

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 37 of 54

03/27/2018 03/27/2018 03/27/2018 03/27/2018
04/04/2018 04/05/2018 04/05/2018
04/06/2018 04/06/2018 04/09/2018
04/09/2018 04/09/2018 04/10/2018

246 NOTICE to Take Deposition by Madison County Sheriff's Deputies, Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Ross, Charles) (Entered: 03/27/2018)
247 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Rahul Guha, Ph.D by Madison County Sheriff's Deputies, Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Ross, Charles) (Entered: 03/27/2018)
248 RESPONSE to Motion re 245 MOTION for Status Conference filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Filed Under Seal − Plaintiff Betty Jean Williams Tucker's Supplemental Responses and Objections to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories)(Wallace, Michael) (Entered: 03/27/2018)
249 ORDER granting 243 Joint Motion to Extend Briefing Deadlines on the Motions for Summary Judgment; denying, as unnecessary 245 Plaintiffs' Expedited Motion for Status Conference. Plaintiffs shall file their Responses to all currently pending Motions for Summary Judgment on or before April 16, 2018. Defendants shall file their Rebuttals to all currently pending Motions for Summary Judgment on or before May 7, 2018. Signed by District Judge William H. Barbour, Jr on 3/27/18 (Lewis, Nijah) (Entered: 03/27/2018)
NOTICE OF SETTING 198 MOTION to Strike Plaintiff Betty Jean Williams Tucker's Deposition Errata Sheet. Telephonic Motion Hearing set for 4/9/2018 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson. Michael Wallace to initiate conference call. Telephone number: 601−608−4440. (WG) (Entered: 04/04/2018)
250 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Defendants' Motion to Deny Class Certification by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 04/05/2018)
251 MOTION for Coordination of Briefing on Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment and for Extension of Time by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Apr 2 2018 Email from Rethy, # 2 Exhibit B Apr 4 2018 Letter from Wallace)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 04/05/2018)
252 NOTICE of Appearance by Jason Edward Dare on behalf of Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Dare, Jason) (Entered: 04/06/2018)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 250 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Plaintiffs' response to Motion to Deny Class is due on or before May 8, 2018; Defendants' rebuttal to Motion to Deny Class is due on or before July 2, 2018. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE. Signed by District Judge William H. Barbour, Jr on 4/6/18 (Lewis, Nijah) (Entered: 04/06/2018)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson: Telephonic Motion Hearing held on 4/9/2018 re 198 MOTION to Strike Plaintiff Betty Jean Williams Tucker's Deposition Errata Sheet filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker. Participants: Johnathan Youngwood, Joshua Tom, Kavitha Sivashanker, Isaac Rethy, Rebecca Cowan, Michael Wallace. Motion granted. Order forthcoming. (WG) (Entered: 04/09/2018)
NOTICE OF SETTING as to 251 MOTION for Coordination of Briefing on Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment and for Extension of Time . With agreement of counsel telephonic Motion Hearing set for 4/10/2018 04:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson. Movant to initiate conference call. Telephone number: 601−608−4440. (WG) (Entered: 04/09/2018)
253 ORDER re: telephonic hearing conducted on 4/9/2018. The Court granted 198 Defendants' Motion to Strike Errata Sheet. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 4/9/2018. (ACF) (Entered: 04/09/2018)
254 RESPONSE in Opposition re 251 MOTION for Coordination of Briefing on Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment and for Extension of Time filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Wallace, Michael) (Entered: 04/10/2018)

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 38 of 54

04/10/2018 04/13/2018 04/13/2018 04/13/2018 04/24/2018 04/26/2018 05/01/2018
05/01/2018

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson: Telephonic Motion Hearing held on 4/10/2018 re 251 MOTION for Coordination of Briefing on Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment and for Extension of Time filed by Betty Jean Williams Tucker, Steven Smith, Latoya Brown, Nicholas Singleton, Bessie Thomas, Quinnetta Manning, Lawrence Blackmon, Khadafy Manning. Appearances: Johnathan Youngwood, Isaac Rethy, Michael Wallace and Charles Ross. Parties have agreed to a resolution of the issues. Johnathan Youngwood to submit proposed order. Motion granted in part and denied in part. (WG) (Entered: 04/11/2018)
255 ORDER re: telephonic hearing conducted 4/10/2018. Granting in part and denying in part 251 Motion for Coordination of Briefing and Extension of Time. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 4/13/2018. (ACF) (Entered: 04/13/2018)
256 MOTION for Summary Judgment on the Class Claims of Khadafy Manning and Quinnetta Manning by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Affidavit of Slade Moore, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Quinnetta Manning deposition, # 3 Exhibit 3 − Khadafy Manning deposition, # 4 Exhibit 4 − Samuel Howard deposition)(Graves, James) (Entered: 04/13/2018)
257 MEMORANDUM in Support re 256 MOTION for Summary Judgment on the Class Claims of Khadafy Manning and Quinnetta Manning filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Graves, James) (Entered: 04/13/2018)
258 Unopposed MOTION For Further Consolidation of Summary Judgment Briefing by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 04/24/2018)
259 ORDER granting Plaintiffs' unopposed 258 motion for further consolidation of briefing regarding Defendants' motions for summary judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 4/26/2018. (ACF) (Entered: 04/26/2018)
260 RESPONSE in Opposition re 228 MOTION for Summary Judgment , 220 MOTION for Summary Judgment , 256 MOTION for Summary Judgment on the Class Claims of Khadafy Manning and Quinnetta Manning, 218 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Individual and Class Based Claims by Plaintiff Betty Jean Williams Tucker, 222 MOTION for Summary Judgment , 211 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Individual and Class Based Claims of Plaintiff, Steven Smith, 209 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Individual Class Based Claims of Plaintiff, LaToya Brown filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23, # 24 Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 25, # 26 Exhibit 26, # 27 Exhibit 27, # 28 Exhibit 28, # 29 Exhibit 29, # 30 Exhibit 30, # 31 Exhibit 31, # 32 Exhibit 32, # 33 Exhibit 33, # 34 Exhibit 34, # 35 Exhibit 35, # 36 Exhibit 36, # 37 Exhibit 37, # 38 Exhibit 38, # 39 Exhibit 39, # 40 Exhibit 40, # 41 Exhibit 41, # 42 Exhibit 42, # 43 Exhibit 43, # 44 Exhibit 44, # 45 Exhibit 45, # 46 Exhibit 46, # 47 Exhibit 47, # 48 Exhibit 48, # 49 Exhibit 49, # 50 Exhibit 50, # 51 Exhibit 51, # 52 Exhibit 52, # 53 Exhibit 53, # 54 Exhibit 54, # 55 Exhibit 55, # 56 Exhibit 56, # 57 Exhibit 57, # 58 Exhibit 58, # 59 Exhibit 59, # 60 Exhibit 60, # 61 Exhibit 61, # 62 Exhibit 62, # 63 Exhibit 63, # 64 Exhibit 64, # 65 Exhibit 65, # 66 Exhibit 66, # 67 Exhibit 67, # 68 Exhibit 68, # 69 Exhibit 69, # 70 Exhibit 70, # 71 Exhibit 71, # 72 Exhibit 72, # 73 Exhibit 73, # 74 Exhibit 74, # 75 Exhibit 75, # 76 Exhibit 76, # 77 Exhibit 77, # 78 Exhibit 78, # 79 Exhibit 79, # 80 Exhibit 80, # 81 Exhibit 81, # 82 Exhibit 82, # 83 Exhibit 83, # 84 Exhibit 84, # 85 Exhibit 85, # 86 Exhibit 86, # 87 Exhibit 87, # 88 Exhibit 88, # 89 Exhibit 89, # 90 Exhibit 90, # 91 Exhibit 91, # 92 Exhibit 92, # 93 Exhibit 93, # 94 Exhibit 94)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 05/01/2018)
261 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 228 MOTION for Summary Judgment , 220 MOTION for Summary Judgment , 218 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Individual and Class Based Claims by Plaintiff Betty Jean Williams Tucker, 256 MOTION for Summary Judgment on the Class Claims of Khadafy Manning and Quinnetta Manning, 211 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Individual and Class

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 39 of 54

05/01/2018 05/08/2018 05/08/2018
05/08/2018 05/08/2018 05/08/2018 05/08/2018

Based Claims of Plaintiff, Steven Smith, 222 MOTION for Summary Judgment , 209 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Individual Class Based Claims of Plaintiff, LaToya Brown filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 05/01/2018)
Docket Annotation as to Doc. 260 : L.U.Civ.R. 7(b)(2) requires that all supporting exhibits to a document be denominated by an exhibit letter or number and a meaningful description. Attorney is advised to follow this rule in future filings. (VM) (Entered: 05/02/2018)
262 NOTICE of Service of Second Supplemental Disclosure by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Cowan, Rebecca) (Entered: 05/08/2018)
263 MOTION to Strike Newspaper Articles Attached to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification as Inadmissible Hearsay by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−Memo in Supp of Mot for Class Certification, # 2 Exhibit B−New Supervisors article, # 3 Exhibit C−Is System Fair article, # 4 Exhibit D−Roadblocks questioned article, # 5 Exhibit E−Racial profiling accusations article, # 6 Exhibit F−House panel considers bill article, # 7 Exhibit G−Making Amends article, # 8 Exhibit H−Captain Randy Tucker to Run for sheriff article, # 9 Exhibit I−Madison Sheriff responds to Jackson councilman article, # 10 Exhibit J−Q&A with Sheriff Randy Tucker article)(Ross, Charles) (Entered: 05/08/2018)
264 MEMORANDUM in Support re 263 MOTION to Strike Newspaper Articles Attached to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification as Inadmissible Hearsay filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Ross, Charles) (Entered: 05/08/2018)
265 RESPONSE to Motion re 237 MOTION to Deny Class Certification filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 05/08/2018)
266 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 237 MOTION to Deny Class Certification filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 05/08/2018)
267 RESPONSE in Opposition re 231 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1− Excerpts from Angela Lyons Deposition, # 2 Exhibit 2−Excerpts from Perie Freeman Deposition, # 3 Exhibit 3−Excerpts from Darian Smith Deposition, # 4 Exhibit 4−ACLU Outreach Documents, # 5 Exhibit 5−Excerpts from Sheriff Tucker's Deposition, # 6 Exhibit 6−Excerpts from Jeremy Williams' Deposition, # 7 Exhibit 7−Excerpts from Jeffrey Waldrop's Deposition, # 8 Exhibit 8−Copy of Policies, # 9 Exhibit 9−Excerpts from Paul Griffin's Deposition, # 10 Exhibit 10−2−20−2018 Minute Entry by the Court, # 11 Exhibit 11−Order Dismissing Plaintiff's Claims in 3:13−cv−HSO−RHW, # 12 Exhibit 12−Affidavit of Tommy Jones, # 13 Exhibit 13−Expert Report of Mark Dunston, # 14 Exhibit 14−Response to Interrogatory No. 6, # 15 Exhibit 15−Excerpts from Rahul Guha's Deposition, # 16 Exhibit 16−Expert Report of Dwight Steward, Re Dr. Bryan Ricchetti, May 8, 2018, # 17 Exhibit 17−Excerpts from Brian Ricchetti's Deposition, # 18 Exhibit 18−Declaration of Mark Sandridge, # 19 Exhibit 19−2010 Census Tract Map for Madison County, # 20 Exhibit 20−Thematic Map, # 21 Exhibit 21−Expert Report of William Funderburk, # 22 Exhibit 22−Excerpts from Deposition of Josh Fish, # 23 Exhibit 23−Excerpts from Deposition of Jason Barnes, # 24 Exhibit 24−Excerpts from Deposition of James Hall, # 25 Exhibit 25−Excerpts from Deposition of Sam Howard, # 26 Exhibit 26−Excerpts from Deposition of Tommy Jones, # 27 Exhibit 27−Excerpts from Deposition of Rylon Thompson, # 28 Exhibit 28−Excerpts from Deposition of Todd Wilson, # 29 Exhibit 29−Excerpts from Deposition of Mark Sandridge, # 30 Exhibit 30−Excerpts from Deposition of Brad Sullivan, # 31 Exhibit 31−Excerpts from Deposition of Brian Loveall, # 32 Exhibit 32−Excerpts from Deposition of Will Weisenberger, # 33 Exhibit 33−Manning Amended Complaint, # 34 Exhibit 34−Plaintiff Brown Interrogatory Responses, # 35 Exhibit 35−Expert Report of Dwight Steward Re Dr. Rahul Guha, May 8, 2018, # 36 Exhibit 36−Table of Dr. Ricchetti's Census Tract Assignments and Roadblocks)(Wallace, Michael) (Entered: 05/08/2018)

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 40 of 54

05/08/2018 05/08/2018 05/08/2018
05/08/2018 05/08/2018
05/08/2018 05/08/2018
05/08/2018
05/08/2018 05/08/2018 05/09/2018
05/09/2018

268 MEMORANDUM in Support re 267 Response in Opposition to Motion,,,,,,,,, filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Wallace, Michael) (Entered: 05/08/2018)
269 MOTION for Evidentiary Hearing re 231 MOTION to Certify Class by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Wallace, Michael) (Entered: 05/08/2018)
270 MOTION in Limine and Daubert Motion by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Report of Bryan Ricchetti, # 2 Exhibit 2 Deposition of Dr. Ricchetti, # 3 Exhibit 3 Rebuttal Report of Dr. Steward, # 4 Exhibit 4 Report of Geographer William Funderburk, # 5 Exhibit 5 Table of Dr. Ricchetti's Census Tract Assignments, # 6 Exhibit 6 Declaration of Lt. Mark Sandridge, # 7 Exhibit 7 Declaration of Rylon Thompson, # 8 Exhibit 8 Lorie Fridell, By the Numbers, # 9 Exhibit 9 Ridgeway, Greg and John MacDonald)(Nobile, T.) (Entered: 05/08/2018)
271 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 270 MOTION in Limine and Daubert Motion filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Nobile, T.) (Entered: 05/08/2018)
272 MOTION in Limine to Exclude FRE 1006 Declaration from Rahul Guha by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Summary Declaration of Rahul Guha, # 2 Exhibit 2 Deposition of Rahul Guha, # 3 Exhibit 3 Rebuttal Report of Dr. Steward, # 4 Exhibit 4 Report of Expert Mark Dunston, # 5 Exhibit 5 Rand Corp., Technical Report, # 6 Exhibit 6 Letter from K. Sivashanker)(Nobile, T.) (Entered: 05/08/2018)
273 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 272 MOTION in Limine to Exclude FRE 1006 Declaration from Rahul Guha filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Nobile, T.) (Entered: 05/08/2018)
274 Amended MOTION to Strike Newspaper Articles Attached to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification as Inadmissible Hearsay by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Pl's Memo of Law for Class Certification, # 2 Exhibit Madison County Journal, # 3 Exhibit Clarion−Ledger Article 7−22−07, # 4 Exhibit Clarion−Ledger Article 07−18−06, # 5 Exhibit Clarion−Ledger Article 11−06−07, # 6 Exhibit Clarion−Ledger Article 1−14−09, # 7 Exhibit Jackson Free Press 8−17−11, # 8 Exhibit Y'all Politics 3−7−18, # 9 Exhibit Clarion−Ledger video link, # 10 Exhibit Madison Journal 1−14−15)(Ross, Charles) (Entered: 05/08/2018)
275 MEMORANDUM in Support re 274 Amended MOTION to Strike Newspaper Articles Attached to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification as Inadmissible Hearsay, 264 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 232 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 263 MOTION to Strike Newspaper Articles Attached to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification as Inadmissible Hearsay, 231 MOTION to Certify Class as Inadmissible filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Ross, Charles) (Entered: 05/08/2018)
276 MOTION to Strike 231 MOTION to Certify Class by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Wallace, Michael) (Entered: 05/08/2018)
277 MEMORANDUM in Support re 276 MOTION to Strike 231 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Wallace, Michael) (Entered: 05/08/2018)
278 ATTACHMENT re 276 MOTION to Strike 231 MOTION to Certify Class by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker: Exhibit A−Memo in Support of Ps' MCC, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B−Ps' Supp Initial Disclosures 12−28−17, # 2 Exhibit C−12−29−17 email exchange, # 3 Exhibit D−Ps' 2nd Supp Initial Disclosures, # 4 Exhibit E−02−07−18 email exchange, # 5 Exhibit F−02−13−18 email from K. Sivashanker w/doc production)(Ross, Charles) (Entered: 05/09/2018)
279 ATTACHMENT re 276 MOTION to Strike 231 MOTION to Certify Class by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker: Exhibit G−Declaration of J. Bacon, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit H−Declaration of M. Bracey, # 2 Exhibit I−Declaration of A. Brown, # 3 Exhibit J−Declaration of B. Brown, # 4 Exhibit K−Declaration of W. Carter, # 5 Exhibit L−Declaration of R. Davis, # 6 Exhibit M−Declaration of V. Davis, # 7 Exhibit N−Declaration of D. Day, # 8 Exhibit O−Declaration of V. Doss, # 9

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 41 of 54

05/09/2018
05/09/2018
05/09/2018 05/09/2018 05/14/2018 05/14/2018

Exhibit P−Declaration of U. Guise, # 10 Exhibit Q− Declaration of K. Harris)(Ross, Charles) (Entered: 05/09/2018)
280 ATTACHMENT re 276 MOTION to Strike 231 MOTION to Certify Class by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker: Exhibit R−Declaration of L. Hollins, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit S−Declaration of A. Howard, # 2 Exhibit T−Declaration of D. Jones, # 3 Exhibit U−Declaration of L. Jones, # 4 Exhibit V−Declaration of A. McKay, # 5 Exhibit W−Declaration of A. Mitchell, # 6 Exhibit X−Declaration of E. Pate, Jr., # 7 Exhibit Y−Declaration of D. Smith, # 8 Exhibit Z−Declaration of Q. Smith, # 9 Exhibit AA−Declaration of J. Spann, # 10 Exhibit BB−Declaration of T. Thompson, # 11 Exhibit CC−Declaration of M. Tillman)(Ross, Charles) (Entered: 05/09/2018)
281 ATTACHMENT re 276 MOTION to Strike 231 MOTION to Certify Class by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker: Exhibit DD−Declaration of E. Wilder, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit EE−Declaration of M. Williams, # 2 Exhibit FF−Bacon Incident Report, # 3 Exhibit GG − Bracey Justice Court records, # 4 Exhibit HH−Brown Justice Court records, # 5 Exhibit II−Carter Justice Court records, # 6 Exhibit JJ−R. Davis Justice Court records, # 7 Exhibit KK−V. Davis Justice Court records, # 8 Exhibit LL−Day court records, # 9 Exhibit MM−Doss Justice Court records, # 10 Exhibit NN−Guise Justice Court records, # 11 Exhibit OO−Harris Justice Court records)(Ross, Charles) (Entered: 05/09/2018)
282 ATTACHMENT re 276 MOTION to Strike 231 MOTION to Certify Class by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker: Exhibit PP−L. Hollins Justice Court Records, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit QQ−Howard Justice Court records, # 2 Exhibit RR−D. Jones records, # 3 Exhibit SS− McKay Justice Court records, # 4 Exhibit TT−Mitchell Justice Court records, # 5 Exhibit UU−Pate Justice Court records, # 6 Exhibit VV−Smith records, # 7 Exhibit WW− Smith Justice Court records, # 8 Exhibit XX−Thompson Justice Court records, # 9 Exhibit YY−Tillman records)(Ross, Charles) (Entered: 05/09/2018)
283 ATTACHMENT re 276 MOTION to Strike 231 MOTION to Certify Class by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Ross, Charles) (Entered: 05/09/2018)
284 MOTION to Withdraw 276 MOTION to Strike 231 MOTION to Certify Class , 281 Attachment,, 283 Attachment, 277 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 280 Attachment,, 278 Attachment, 279 Attachment,, 282 Attachment,, by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Ross, Charles) (Entered: 05/14/2018)
285 MOTION to Strike 232 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 231 MOTION to Certify Class by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−Ps' Memo in Supp of Mot for Class Cert, # 2 Exhibit B−Ps' Supp Initial Disclosures 12−28−17, # 3 Exhibit C−12−29−17 email exchange, # 4 Exhibit D−Ps 2nd Supp Initial Disclosures, # 5 Exhibit E−2−07−18 email exchange, # 6 Exhibit F−2−13−18 email from K Sivashanker, # 7 Exhibit G−Declaration of James Bacon, # 8 Exhibit H−Declaration of Michael Bracey, # 9 Exhibit I−Declaration of Anthony Brown, # 10 Exhibit J−Declaration of Bysheba Brown, # 11 Exhibit K−Declaration of Willie Carter, # 12 Exhibit L−Declaration of Rasheid Davis, # 13 Exhibit M−Declaration of Veronica Davis, # 14 Exhibit N−Declaration of Demario Day, # 15 Exhibit O−Declaration of Domunique Doss, # 16 Exhibit P−Declaration of Undrea Guise, # 17 Exhibit Q−Declaration of Kenneth Harris, # 18 Exhibit R−Declaration of Lester Hollins, # 19 Exhibit S−Declaration of Antonio Howard, # 20 Exhibit T−Declaration of Destiny Jones, # 21 Exhibit U−Declaration of Lisa Lewis Jones, # 22 Exhibit V−Declaration of Archie McKay, # 23 Exhibit W−Declaration of Antonio Mitchell, # 24 Exhibit X−Declaration of Earnest Pate, Jr., # 25 Exhibit Y−Declaration of Delores Smith, # 26 Exhibit Z−Declaration of Quincy Smith, # 27 Exhibit AA−Declaration of John Spann, # 28 Exhibit BB−Declaration of Terrance Thompson, # 29 Exhibit CC−Declaration of Montreal Tillman, # 30 Exhibit DD−Declaration of Earline Wilder, # 31 Supplement EE−Declaration of Michelle Williams, # 32 Exhibit FF−Bacon Incident Report, # 33 Exhibit GG−Bracey Justice Court Records, # 34 Exhibit HH−Anthony Brown Justice Court Records, # 35 Exhibit II−Carter Justice Court Records, # 36 Exhibit JJ−R. Davis Justice Court Records, # 37 Exhibit KK−V. Davis Justice Court Records, # 38 Exhibit LL−Day Court Records, # 39 Exhibit MM−Doss Justice Court Records, # 40 Exhibit NN−Guise Justice Court Records, # 41 Exhibit

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 42 of 54

05/14/2018 05/17/2018 05/18/2018 05/22/2018 05/22/2018
05/30/2018 05/30/2018

OO−Harris Justice Court Records, # 42 Exhibit PP−Hollins Justice Court Records, # 43 Exhibit QQ−Howard Justice Court Records, # 44 Exhibit RR−D. Jones Records, # 45 Exhibit SS−McKay Justice Court Records, # 46 Exhibit TT−Mitchell Justice Court Records, # 47 Exhibit UU−Pate Justice Court Records, # 48 Exhibit VV−Delores Smith Records, # 49 Exhibit WW−Quincy Smith Justice Court Records, # 50 Exhibit XX−Thompson Justice Court Records, # 51 Exhibit YY−Madison County Detention Center Records, Tillman, # 52 Exhibit ZZ−Affidavit of C. Horn, Madison Co. Justice Court, with Exhibits 1 and 2)(Ross, Charles) (Entered: 05/14/2018)
286 MEMORANDUM in Support re 285 MOTION to Strike 232 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 231 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Ross, Charles) (Entered: 05/14/2018)
287 Joint MOTION For Entry of Stipulated Scheduling Order by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 05/17/2018)
288 STIPULATED SCHEDULING ORDER entered; granting 287 Motion by the parties regarding briefing. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 5//18/2018. (ACF) (Entered: 05/18/2018)
289 RESPONSE in Support re 237 MOTION to Deny Class Certification filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Quinnetta Manning Deposition Excerpts, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Khadafy Manning Supplemental Responses to First Requests for Production of Documents)(Wallace, Michael) (Entered: 05/22/2018)
290 Rebuttal re 228 MOTION for Summary Judgment , 220 MOTION for Summary Judgment , 256 MOTION for Summary Judgment on the Class Claims of Khadafy Manning and Quinnetta Manning, 211 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Individual and Class Based Claims of Plaintiff, Steven Smith, 222 MOTION for Summary Judgment , 218 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Individual and Class Based Claims by Plaintiff Betty Jean Williams Tucker, 209 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Individual Class Based Claims of Plaintiff, LaToya Brown filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Deposition Excerpts of Nicholas Singleton, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Deposition Excerpts of Bessie Thomas, # 3 Exhibit 3 − Certified Madison County Justice Court Case Records, # 4 Exhibit 4 − Deposition Excerpts of Lawrence Blackmon, # 5 Exhibit 5 − Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents to Defendants, # 6 Exhibit 6 − Plaintiffs' Second Requests for Production of Documents to Defendants, # 7 Exhibit 8 − Plaintiffs' First Interrogatories to Defendants, # 8 Exhibit 9 − Deposition Excerpts of Darian Smith, # 9 Exhibit 10 − Deposition Excerpts of James Hall, # 10 Exhibit 11 − Deposition Excerpts of Rylon Thompson, # 11 Exhibit 12 − Deposition Excerpts of Sam Howard, # 12 Exhibit 13 − Deposition Excerpts of Sheriff Randy Tucker, # 13 Exhibit 14 − Deposition Excerpts of Jason Barnes, # 14 Exhibit 15 − Deposition Excerpts of Tommy Jones, # 15 Exhibit 16 − Deposition Excepts of Scott McDonald, # 16 Exhibit 17 − Deposition Excerpts of Tommy Squires, # 17 Exhibit 18 − Deposition Excerpts of Barry Chandler, # 18 Exhibit 19 − Deposition Excerpts of Quinnetta Manning, # 19 Exhibit 20 − Deposition Excerpts of Latoya Brown, # 20 Exhibit 21 − Deposition Excerpts of Brian Loveall, # 21 Exhibit 22 − Deposition Excerpts of Mark Sandridge, # 22 Exhibit 23 − Deposition Excerpts of Elton Flax, # 23 Exhibit 24 − Deposition Excerpts of Jeremy Williams)(Wallace, Michael) (Entered: 05/22/2018)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting Defendants' unopposed 284 Motion to Withdraw the Motion to Strike 276 , Memorandum 277 and Exhibits [278−283]. NO WRITTEN ORDER TO FOLLOW. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 5/30/2018. (ACF) (Entered: 05/30/2018)
TEXT ONLY ORDER withdrawing 276 Motion to Strike, its Supporting Memorandum 277 and Exhibits [278−283]. NO WRITTEN ORDER TO FOLLOW. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 5/30/2018. (ACF) (Entered: 05/30/2018)

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 43 of 54

06/04/2018
06/04/2018 06/07/2018
06/07/2018 06/07/2018 06/07/2018 06/07/2018 06/14/2018 07/02/2018 07/02/2018 07/02/2018 07/02/2018

291 MOTION for Leave to File Sur Reply in Further Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Deny Class Certification by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Plaintiffs' Proposed Sur Reply in Further Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Deny Class Certification)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 06/04/2018)
292 MEMORANDUM in Support re 291 MOTION for Leave to File Sur Reply in Further Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Deny Class Certification filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 06/04/2018)
293 RESPONSE in Opposition re 274 Amended MOTION to Strike Newspaper Articles Attached to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification as Inadmissible Hearsay filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Former Sheriff Trowbridge Deposition, # 2 Exhibit 2 Supervisor Griffin Deposition, # 3 Exhibit 3 Sheriff Tucker Deposition)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 06/07/2018)
294 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 274 Amended MOTION to Strike Newspaper Articles Attached to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification as Inadmissible Hearsay filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 06/07/2018)
295 RESPONSE in Opposition re 285 MOTION to Strike 232 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 231 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 06/07/2018)
296 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 285 MOTION to Strike 232 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 231 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 06/07/2018)
297 RESPONSE in Opposition re 269 MOTION for Evidentiary Hearing re 231 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 06/07/2018)
298 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Mark Dunston, William Funderburk, and Dwight Steward by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 06/14/2018)
299 RESPONSE in Support re 274 Amended MOTION to Strike Newspaper Articles Attached to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification as Inadmissible Hearsay filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Excerpts from deposition of Sheriff Randall Tucker)(Wallace, Michael) (Entered: 07/02/2018)
300 RESPONSE in Support re 285 MOTION to Strike 232 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 231 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Wallace, Michael) (Entered: 07/02/2018)
301 RESPONSE in Support re 269 MOTION for Evidentiary Hearing re 231 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Wallace, Michael) (Entered: 07/02/2018)
302 RESPONSE in Opposition re 270 MOTION in Limine and Daubert Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Bryan Ricchetti filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Expert Report of Bryan Ricchetti, Ph.D. (March 13, 2018), # 2 Exhibit 2 − Rebuttal Expert Report of Bryan Ricchetti, Ph.D. (July 2, 2018), # 3 Exhibit 3 − Rebuttal Expert Report of

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 44 of 54

07/02/2018 07/02/2018
07/02/2018
07/02/2018 07/02/2018
07/02/2018 07/02/2018 07/15/2018 07/16/2018

Patricia Frontiera, Ph.D. (July 2, 2018), # 4 Exhibit 4 − Rebuttal Expert Report of Justin McCrary, Ph.D. (July 2, 2018), # 5 Exhibit 5 − Rebuttal Report of Dwight D. Steward, Ph.D. RE: Bryan Ricchetti, Ph.D. (May 8, 2018), # 6 Exhibit 6 − Rebuttal Report of William R. Funderburk (May 8, 2018), # 7 Exhibit 7 − Excerpts from the Deposition of Bryan Ricchetti, Ph.D. (April 6, 2018), # 8 Exhibit 8 − Excerpts from the Deposition of Dwight Steward, Ph.D. (June 22, 2018), # 9 Exhibit 9 − Excerpts from the Deposition of William Funderburk (June 20, 2018))(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 07/02/2018)
303 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 270 MOTION in Limine and Daubert Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Bryan Ricchetti filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 07/02/2018)
304 REPLY to Response to Motion re 231 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Rebuttal Expert Report of Bryan Ricchetti, Ph.D., # 2 Exhibit 2 − Rebuttal Expert Report of Justin McCrary, Ph.D., # 3 Exhibit 3 − Rebuttal Expert Report of Patricia Frontiera, Ph.D., # 4 Exhibit 4 − Rebuttal Expert Report of Robert McNeilly, # 5 Exhibit 5 − Excerpts from Deposition of Barry Chandler, # 6 Exhibit 6 − Excerpts from Deposition of Bryan Ricchetti, Ph.D., # 7 Exhibit 7 − Excerpts from Deposition of Angela Lyons)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 07/02/2018)
305 RESPONSE in Opposition re 272 MOTION in Limine to Exclude FRE 1006 Declaration from Rahul Guha filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Summary Declaration of Rahul Guha (March 13, 2018), # 2 Exhibit 2 − Declaration of Rahul Guha Submitted Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 (July 2, 2018), # 3 Exhibit 3 − Rebuttal Report of Dwight D. Steward, Ph.D. RE: Rahul Guha, Ph.D. (July 2, 2018), # 4 Exhibit 4 − Report of Mark Dunston (May 8, 2018), # 5 Exhibit 5 − Excerpts from the Deposition of Rahul Guha, Ph.D. (April 18, 2018), # 6 Exhibit 6 − Excerpts from the Deposition of Dwight Steward, Ph.D. (June 22, 2018), # 7 Exhibit 7 − Excerpts from the Deposition of Mark Dunston (June 14, 2018))(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 07/02/2018)
306 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION re 272 MOTION in Limine to Exclude FRE 1006 Declaration from Rahul Guha filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 07/02/2018)
307 MOTION to Exclude the Report and Testimony of William R. Funderburk by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Report of William R. Funderburk (May 8, 2018), # 2 Exhibit 2 − Rebuttal Expert Report of Patricia Frontiera, Ph.D. (July 2, 2018), # 3 Exhibit 3 − Rebuttal Expert Report of Bryan Ricchetti, Ph.D. (July 2, 2018), # 4 Exhibit 4 − Excerpts from Transcript of Deposition of William Funderburk (June 20, 2018))(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 07/02/2018)
308 MEMORANDUM in Support re 307 MOTION to Exclude the Report and Testimony of William R. Funderburk filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 07/02/2018)
309 NOTICE of Service of Expert Disclosure by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 07/02/2018)
310 Unopposed MOTION for Entry of Scheduling Order re 307 MOTION to Exclude the Report and Testimony of William R. Funderburk by Randall S. Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit −1 Agreed Order)(Nobile, T.) (Entered: 07/15/2018)
311 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Jumin Lee by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 07/16/2018)

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 45 of 54

07/17/2018 07/17/2018
07/23/2018 07/23/2018 07/30/2018
07/30/2018
07/30/2018 07/30/2018 07/30/2018 07/30/2018 07/30/2018 07/30/2018 08/03/2018 08/06/2018 08/17/2018

TEXT−ONLY ORDER granting 311 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Jumin Lee − PHV terminated. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 7/17/2018. No further written order will issue. (WG) (Entered: 07/17/2018)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 310 Motion. Defendants' response to Motion to Exclude Funderburk is due on or before July 30, 2018. Plaintiffs' rebuttal is due on or before August 17, 2018. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE. Signed by District Judge William H. Barbour, Jr on 7/17/18 (Lewis, Nijah) (Entered: 07/17/2018)
312 Rebuttal re 270 MOTION in Limine and Daubert Motion to Exclude Testimony of Dr. Bryan Ricchetti filed by Randall S. Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit −1 Report from Dr. Dwight Steward, July 23, 2018, # 2 Exhibit − 2 Excerpts from Deposition William Funderburk, June 20, 2018)(Nobile, T.) (Entered: 07/23/2018)
313 Rebuttal re 272 MOTION in Limine to Exclude FRE 1006 Declaration from Rahul Guha filed by Randall S. Tucker (Nobile, T.) (Entered: 07/23/2018)
314 RESPONSE in Opposition re 307 MOTION to Exclude the Report and Testimony of William R. Funderburk filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit − 1 Declaration of Willian R. Funderburk, July 30, 2018, # 2 Exhibit − 2 Deposition of William R. Funderburk, June 20, 2018, # 3 Exhibit − 3 Declaration of Deputy Rylon Thompson, July 30, 2018)(Nobile, T.) (Entered: 07/30/2018)
315 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION re 307 MOTION to Exclude the Report and Testimony of William R. Funderburk Memorandum in Support of Defendants' Opposition to the Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude the Report and Testimony of William R. Funderburk filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Nobile, T.) (Entered: 07/30/2018)
316 MOTION to Exclude Plaintiffs' Untimely Designation of New Expert Witness Justin McCrary by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A" McCrary Cornerstone Biography)(Cowan, Charles) (Entered: 07/30/2018)
317 MEMORANDUM in Support re 316 MOTION to Exclude Plaintiffs' Untimely Designation of New Expert Witness Justin McCrary filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Cowan, Charles) (Entered: 07/30/2018)
318 MOTION to Exclude Plaintiff's Untimely Designation of New Expert Witness Patricia Frontiera, Ph.D. by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A": Dr. Ricchetti Deposition Excerpts)(Cowan, Charles) (Entered: 07/30/2018)
319 MEMORANDUM in Support re 318 MOTION to Exclude Plaintiff's Untimely Designation of New Expert Witness Patricia Frontiera, Ph.D. filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Cowan, Charles) (Entered: 07/30/2018)
320 MOTION to Exclude Plaintiffs' Untimely Designation of [Dkt. #304−4] Robert McNeilly as New Expert Witness by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Cowan, Rebecca) (Entered: 07/30/2018)
321 MEMORANDUM in Support re 320 MOTION to Exclude Plaintiffs' Untimely Designation of [Dkt. #304−4] Robert McNeilly as New Expert Witness filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Cowan, Rebecca) (Entered: 07/30/2018)
322 Joint MOTION For Entry of Stipulated Scheduling Order by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 08/03/2018)
323 STIPULATED SCHEDULING ORDER granting 322 Motion for deadlines regarding responses to motions 316, 318, and 320. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 8/6/2018. (ACF) (Entered: 08/06/2018)
324 REPLY to Response to Motion re 307 MOTION to Exclude the Report and Testimony of William R. Funderburk filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas,

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 46 of 54

08/20/2018 08/20/2018 08/20/2018 08/20/2018 08/20/2018 08/20/2018 08/21/2018 08/21/2018 08/21/2018 08/21/2018 09/04/2018

Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 08/17/2018)
325 RESPONSE in Opposition re 320 MOTION to Exclude Plaintiffs' Untimely Designation of [Dkt. #304−4] Robert McNeilly as New Expert Witness filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 08/20/2018)
326 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 320 MOTION to Exclude Plaintiffs' Untimely Designation of [Dkt. #304−4] Robert McNeilly as New Expert Witness filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 08/20/2018)
327 RESPONSE in Opposition re 316 MOTION to Exclude Plaintiffs' Untimely Designation of New Expert Witness Justin McCrary filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 08/20/2018)
328 **ERROR** Disregard this entry. MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 316 MOTION to Exclude Plaintiffs' Untimely Designation of New Expert Witness Justin McCrary filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 08/20/2018)
329 **ERROR** Disregard this entry. RESPONSE in Opposition re 318 MOTION to Exclude Plaintiff's Untimely Designation of New Expert Witness Patricia Frontiera, Ph.D. filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Excerpts from Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Dwight Steward (June 22, 2018))(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 08/20/2018)
330 **ERROR** Disregard this entry. MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 318 MOTION to Exclude Plaintiff's Untimely Designation of New Expert Witness Patricia Frontiera, Ph.D. filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 08/20/2018)
Docket Annotation as to Doc. 328 , 329 , and 330 : Incorrect PDF format used. Any PDF document electronically filed through CM/ECF should be converted to PDF by printing to the PDF printer. Documents containing the Enable Editing feature should not be filed. Attorney is advised to refile documents 328 , 329 and 330 using the correct PDF format. (VM) (Entered: 08/21/2018)
331 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 316 MOTION to Exclude Plaintiffs' Untimely Designation of New Expert Witness Justin McCrary filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 08/21/2018)
332 RESPONSE in Opposition re 318 MOTION to Exclude Plaintiff's Untimely Designation of New Expert Witness Patricia Frontiera, Ph.D. filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Excerpts from Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Dwight Steward (June 22, 2018))(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 08/21/2018)
333 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 318 MOTION to Exclude Plaintiff's Untimely Designation of New Expert Witness Patricia Frontiera, Ph.D. filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 08/21/2018)
334 Emergency MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 318 MOTION to Exclude Plaintiff's Untimely Designation of New Expert Witness Patricia Frontiera, Ph.D. by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Cowan,

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 47 of 54

09/04/2018 09/04/2018 09/04/2018 09/07/2018 09/12/2018 01/04/2019
01/15/2019 02/04/2019
02/04/2019

Charles) (Entered: 09/04/2018)
335 ORDER granting 334 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Defendants are granted until September 7, 2018 to file their rebuttal brief in support of their their Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs' Untimely Designation of New Expert Witness Patricia Frontiera [Dkt. #318]. Signed by District Judge William H. Barbour, Jr on 9/4/18 (Lewis, Nijah) (Entered: 09/04/2018)
336 REPLY to Response to Motion re 331 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 327 Response in Opposition to Motion, 316 MOTION to Exclude Plaintiffs' Untimely Designation of New Expert Witness Justin McCrary filed by Madison County Sheriff's Deputies, Randall S. Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit January 26, 2018 Email from Isaac Rethy)(Cowan, Charles) (Entered: 09/04/2018)
337 REPLY to Response to Motion re 320 MOTION to Exclude Plaintiffs' Untimely Designation of [Dkt. #304−4] Robert McNeilly as New Expert Witness filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Cowan, Rebecca) (Entered: 09/04/2018)
338 Rebuttal re 318 MOTION to Exclude Plaintiff's Untimely Designation of New Expert Witness Patricia Frontiera, Ph.D. filed by Madison County, Mississippi (Nobile, T.) (Entered: 09/07/2018)
339 NOTICE of Appearance by Landon P. Thomas on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Thomas, Landon) (Entered: 09/12/2018)
340 ORDER denying 231 Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class, and finding as moot 291 Motion; finding as moot 307 Motion to Exclude; finding as moot 316 Motion to Exclude; finding as moot 318 Motion to Exclude; finding as moot 320 Motion to Exclude; denying 209 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 211 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 218 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 220 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 222 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 228 Motion for Summary Judgment; finding as moot 237 Motion; denying 256 Motion for Summary Judgment; finding as moot 263 Motion to Strike; finding as moot 269 Motion for Hearing; finding as moot 270 Motion in Limine; finding as moot 272 Motion in Limine; finding as moot 274 Motion to Strike; finding as moot 285 Motion to Strike. Plaintiffs are hereby granted thirty days, up to and including February 4, 2019, to file an Amended Complaint in this case setting forth the proposed classes they seek to certify, and correcting the pleading deficiencies identified in this Opinion and Order. Signed by District Judge William H. Barbour, Jr., on 01/04/2019. (sc) (Entered: 01/04/2019)
341 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to District Judge Carlton W. Reeves for all further proceedings. District Judge William H. Barbour, Jr no longer assigned to case Signed by Chief District Judge Daniel P. Jordan, III on 1/15/19 (MGB) (Entered: 01/15/2019)
342 AMENDED COMPLAINT − First Amended Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Individual Damages against John Does 1−6, Madison County Sheriff's Deputies, Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker, filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Bessie Thomas, Steven Smith, Latoya Brown, Nicholas Singleton, Betty Jean Williams Tucker. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Madison County Census Map, # 2 Exhibit B − Roadblock Policy, # 3 Exhibit C − Roadblock Notice, # 4 Exhibit D − Sobriety Checkpoint Policy)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 02/04/2019)
343 MOTION to Certify Class by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Report of Bryan Ricchetti, Ph.D. (March 13, 2018), # 2 Exhibit 2 − Summary Declaration of Rahul Guha, Ph.D., Submitted Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 1006 (March 13, 2018), # 3 Exhibit 3 − Excerpts from Transcript of Deposition of Lawrence Blackmon (filed publicly in redacted form), # 4 Exhibit 4 − Excerpts from Transcript of Deposition of Latoya Brown, # 5 Exhibit 5 − Excerpts from Transcript of Deposition of Khadafy Manning, # 6 Exhibit 6 − Excerpts from Transcript of Deposition of Quinnetta Manning, # 7 Exhibit 7 − Excerpts from Transcript of Deposition of Nicholas Singleton, # 8 Exhibit 8 − Excerpts from Transcript of Deposition of Steven Smith, # 9 Exhibit 9 − Excerpts

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 48 of 54
from Transcript of Deposition of Bessie Thomas, # 10 Exhibit 10 − Excerpts from Transcript of Deposition of Betty Jean Williams Tucker (filed publicly in redacted form), # 11 Exhibit 11 − Excerpts from Transcript of Deposition of Josh Fish, # 12 Exhibit 12 − Excerpts from Transcript of Deposition of Elton Flax, # 13 Exhibit 13 − Excerpts from Transcript of Deposition of Paul Griffin, # 14 Exhibit 14 − Excerpts from Transcript of Deposition of James Hall, # 15 Exhibit 15 − Excerpts from Transcript of Deposition of Samuel Howard, # 16 Exhibit 16 − Excerpts from Transcript of Deposition of Tommy Jones, # 17 Exhibit 17 − Excerpts from Transcript of Deposition of Slade Moore, # 18 Exhibit 18 − Excerpts from Transcript of Deposition of Mark Sandridge, # 19 Exhibit 19 − Excerpts from Transcript of Deposition of Tommy Squires, # 20 Exhibit 20 − Excerpts from Transcript of Deposition of Darian Smith, # 21 Exhibit 21 − Excerpts from Transcript of Deposition of Bradley Sullivan, # 22 Exhibit 22 − Excerpts from Transcript of Deposition of Rylon Thompson, # 23 Exhibit 23 − Excerpts from Transcript of Deposition of Toby Trowbridge, # 24 Exhibit 24 − Excerpts from Transcript of Deposition of Randal Tucker, # 25 Exhibit 25 − Excerpts from Transcript of Deposition of Jeffrey Waldrop, # 26 Exhibit 26 − Excerpts from Transcript of Deposition of William Weisenberger, # 27 Exhibit 27 − Excerpts from Transcript of Deposition of Jeremy Williams, # 28 Exhibit 28 − Excerpts from Transcript of Deposition of Todd Wilson, # 29 Exhibit 29 − Declaration of Lawrence Blackmon (Feb. 3, 2019), # 30 Exhibit 30 − Declaration of Latoya Brown (Feb. 3, 2019), # 31 Exhibit 31 − Declaration of Khadafy Manning (Mar. 3, 2018), # 32 Exhibit 32 − [omitted], # 33 Exhibit 33 − Declaration of Nicholas Singleton (Mar. 3, 2018), # 34 Exhibit 34 − Declaration of Steven Smith (Mar. 6, 2018), # 35 Exhibit 35 − Declaration of Bessie Thomas (Mar. 3, 2018), # 36 Exhibit 36 − Declaration of Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Mar. 5, 2018), # 37 Exhibit 37 − Declaration of James Bacon (Oct. 24, 2017), # 38 Exhibit 38 − Declaration of Michael Bracey (Oct. 21, 2017), # 39 Exhibit 39 − Declaration of Anthony Brown (Oct. 21, 2017), # 40 Exhibit 40 − Declaration of Bysheba Brown (Oct. 25, 2017), # 41 Exhibit 41 − Declaration of Willie Carter (Oct. 24, 2017), # 42 Exhibit 42 − Declaration of Rasheid Davis (Oct. 24, 2017), # 43 Exhibit 43 − Declaration of Veronica Davis (Oct. 22, 2017), # 44 Exhibit 44 − Declaration of Demario Day (Feb. 6, 2018), # 45 Exhibit 45 − Declaration of Domunique Doss (Oct. 25, 2017), # 46 Exhibit 46 − Declaration of Undrea Guise (Oct. 22, 2017), # 47 Exhibit 47 − Declaration of Kenneth Harris (Oct. 24, 2017), # 48 Exhibit 48 − Declaration of Lester Hollins (Oct. 21, 2017), # 49 Exhibit 49 − Declaration of Antonio Howard (Oct. 25, 2017), # 50 Exhibit 50 − Declaration of Destiny Jones (Feb. 7, 2018), # 51 Exhibit 51 − Declaration of Lisa Lewis Jones (Feb. 9, 2018), # 52 Exhibit 52 − Declaration of Archie McKay (Feb. 4, 2018), # 53 Exhibit 53 − Declaration of Antonio Mitchell (Feb. 5, 2018), # 54 Exhibit 54 − Declaration of Ernest Pate, Jr. (Feb. 5, 2018), # 55 Exhibit 55 − Declaration of Delores Smith (Feb. 4, 2018), # 56 Exhibit 56 − Declaration of Quincy Smith (Feb. 7, 2018), # 57 Exhibit 57 − Declaration of John Spann (Oct. 22, 2017), # 58 Exhibit 58 − Declaration of Terrance Thompson (Feb. 5, 2018), # 59 Exhibit 59 − Declaration of Montreal Tillman (Feb. 5, 2018), # 60 Exhibit 60 − Declaration of Earline Wilder (Oct. 22, 2017), # 61 Exhibit 61 − Declaration of Michelle Williams (Feb. 12, 2018), # 62 Exhibit 62 − Madison County Census Data (2010−2016), # 63 Exhibit 63 − Excerpts from Mississippi Census (1990), # 64 Exhibit 64 − Defendants Response to Plaintiffs First Set of Requests For Admission (Oct. 20, 2017), # 65 Exhibit 65 − MC−INT 1−1, Description of MCSD roles and responsibilities, # 66 Exhibit 66 − Defendants Response to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories (Oct. 20, 2017), # 67 Exhibit 67 − MCSD Roster (Jan. 11, 2018), # 68 Exhibit 68 − MCSD_Emails_Reproduced−01245, Email from Mark Sandridge to Randall Tucker and Jeremy Williams (Mar. 3, 2015), # 69 Exhibit 69 − New supervisors take office Friday, MADISON COUNTY JOURNAL (Jan. 2, 2008), # 70 Exhibit 70 − Is system fair?, THE CLARION−LEDGER (July 22, 2007), # 71 Exhibit 71 − Roadblocks questioned in Canton, THE CLARION−LEDGER (July 18, 2006), # 72 Exhibit 72 − Elizabeth Crisp, Racial profiling accusations thrown at Madison sheriff in board meeting, THE CLARION−LEDGER (Nov. 6, 2007), # 73 Exhibit 73 − [ommitted], # 74 Exhibit 74 − MCSD_Emails_Reproduced−00281, Email from Randall Tucker to Brad Harbour, et al. (June 5, 2009), # 75 Exhibit 75 − [omitted], # 76 Exhibit 76 − [omitted], # 77 Exhibit 77 − Memo from Sheriff Tucker to All Deputies/Employees (Jan. 3, 2012), # 78 Exhibit 78 − 2011 MCSO Roster1, MCSD Roster (2011), # 79 Exhibit 79 − MC 0037, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Memo (May 9, 2013), # 80 Exhibit 80 − Clarion−Ledger report (1/2/16), # 81 Exhibit 81 − MCSD_Emails_Reproduced−01679, Email chain between Randall Tucker and Frank

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 49 of 54

02/04/2019 02/04/2019
02/04/2019 02/12/2019 02/12/2019 02/12/2019

Halford (Jan. 18, 2016), # 82 Exhibit 82 − Memo from Shirlene Anderson, Jackson Chief of Police, to Slade Moore (June 15, 2006), # 83 Exhibit 83 − Complaint, Moore v. City of Jackson, No. 251−10−592CIV (Hinds Cnty. Circuit Ct., Aug. 16, 2010), # 84 Exhibit 84 − Pls. Mem., Huggins v. Belk, # 85 Exhibit 85 − Modified Second Amended Complaint, Fleming v. Hinds County, No. 3:16−cv−554 (S.D. Miss. Nov. 30, 2016), # 86 Exhibit 86 − MC−Emails 213, Email from Joseph Mangino attaching Case File Coversheet, (May 27, 2014), # 87 Exhibit 87 − [omitted], # 88 Exhibit 88 − Letter from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to City of Ridgeland (Dec. 3, 2015), # 89 Exhibit 89 − MC−RFP 21, Policy and Procedures, Sobriety Checkpoint Guidelines (filed publicly in redacted form), # 90 Exhibit 90 − MC−RFP 10−42(1), Letter from Angela Lyons to Jeremy Williams (Oct. 31, 2017), # 91 Exhibit 91 − MC−RFP−Inc. Rep. 010886, Incident Report (May 23, 2013), # 92 Exhibit 92 − MC B. Davis Laptop 4, Roadblock Notice, # 93 Exhibit 93 − MC T. Chastain Laptop 17, Roadblock Notice, # 94 Exhibit 94 − MC L. Sanders Main Server 93, Memo from Tommy Jones to All Narcotics Agents (Jan. 30, 2017), # 95 Exhibit 95 − Excerpt from Plaintiff Steven Smiths Responses and Objections to Defendants First Set of Interrogatories (Oct. 23, 2017), # 96 Exhibit 96 − Incident Reports (MC−RFP−Inc. Rep. 040697), # 97 Exhibit 97 − MC−RFP−Inc. Rep. 047927, Incident Report (Feb. 14, 2017), # 98 Exhibit 98 − Incident Reports (MC−RFP−Inc. Rep. 032317), # 99 Exhibit 99 − MCSD_Emails_Reproduced−01682, Email chain between Randall Tucker and Trey Bobinger (Jan. 8, 2016), # 100 Exhibit 100 − Q&A with Sheriff Randy Tucker, MADISON COUNTY JOURNAL (Jan. 14, 2015), # 101 Exhibit 101 − MC−RFP 8−211, Email to Randall Tucker and Jeremy Williams (Nov. 30, 2016), # 102 Exhibit 102 − MC−RFP−Inc. Rep. 020907, Incident Report (June 9, 2015), # 103 Exhibit 103 − MC−RFP−Inc. Rep. 020065, Incident Report (May 3, 2015), # 104 Exhibit 104 − MC−RFP−8−182, Narrative prepared by Jeremy Williams re Manning incident (June 27, 2016), # 105 Exhibit 105 − Complaint, Gibson v. Madison County, No. 3:16−cv−633 HTW−LRA (S.D. Miss. Aug. 15, 2016), # 106 Exhibit 106 − Excerpt from Transcript of Deposition of Randall Tucker, Gibson v. Madison County (Sep. 9, 2017), # 107 Exhibit 107 − Complaint, Cooper v. Tucker, No. 3:13−cv−350 HTW−LRA (S.D. Miss. June 7, 2013), # 108 Exhibit 108 − MC−RFP−8−29, Complaint from Daryl Dozier and Domekia Myers−Dozier to MCSD, (Mar. 16, 2015), # 109 Exhibit 109 − Response by Defendants to Plaintiffs First Set of Requests for Production of Documents, # 110 Exhibit 110 − Email chain between Kavitha Sivashanker and Charles Cowan, et al. (Feb. 6, 2018), # 111 Exhibit 111 − Declaration of Jonathan K. Youngwood, Esq. (March 13, 2018), # 112 Exhibit 112 − Declaration of Joshua F. Tom, Esq. (March 13, 2018), # 113 Exhibit 113 − Declaration of Ezekiel R. Edwards, Esq. (March 13, 2018))(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 02/04/2019)
344 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 343 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 02/04/2019)
345 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Proposed Second Amended Complaint, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Redline Comparison Between Proposed Second Amended Complaint and First Amended Complaint)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 02/04/2019)
346 MEMORANDUM in Support re 345 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 02/04/2019)
347 MOTION for Settlement Conference by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Wallace, Michael) (Entered: 02/12/2019)
348 MEMORANDUM in Support re 347 MOTION for Settlement Conference filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Wallace, Michael) (Entered: 02/12/2019)
349 MOTION to Stay Proceedings Temporary Stay of Deadlines or, in the Alternative, for an Extension of Time by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Wallace, Michael) (Entered: 02/12/2019)

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 50 of 54

02/12/2019 02/13/2019 02/14/2019 02/14/2019 02/19/2019
02/19/2019 02/19/2019
02/19/2019 02/19/2019 02/19/2019 02/20/2019 02/21/2019

350 NOTICE of Hearing by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker re 349 MOTION to Stay Proceedings Temporary Stay of Deadlines or, in the Alternative, for an Extension of Time (Wallace, Michael) (Entered: 02/12/2019)
NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 349 MOTION to Stay Proceedings Temporary Stay of Deadlines or, in the Alternative, for an Extension of Time: Telephonic Motion Hearing set for 2/20/2019 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson. Counsel for Defendants shall initiate the conference call; and once all parties are on the line, contact the Court at 601−608−4440. (Lewis, Nijah) (Entered: 02/13/2019)
351 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 342 Amended Complaint,, , Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 345 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, 343 MOTION to Certify Class by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Cowan, Charles) (Entered: 02/14/2019)
352 ORDER granting unopposed 351 Motion for Extensions of Time pending ruling on motion for a temporary stay of deadlines 349 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 2/14/2019. (ACF) (Entered: 02/14/2019)
353 Response in Opposition re 349 MOTION to Stay Proceedings Temporary Stay of Deadlines or, in the Alternative, for an Extension of Time by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Wallace, Michael) filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Letter from Jonathan Youngwood to Judge Reeves (Jan. 22, 2019), # 2 Exhibit 2 − Letter from Jonathan Youngwood to Judge Reeves (Feb. 5, 2019), # 3 Exhibit 3 − Order, RMH Tech LLC v. PMC Industries, Inc., No. 16−cv− 01762−CMA−KMT (D. Col. Jan. 10, 2018))(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 02/19/2019)
354 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 349 MOTION to Stay Proceedings Temporary Stay of Deadlines or, in the Alternative, for an Extension of Time filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 02/19/2019)
355 RESPONSE in Opposition re 347 MOTION for Settlement Conference filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Letter from Jonathan Youngwood to Judge Reeves (Jan. 22, 2019), # 2 Exhibit 2 − Letter from Jonathan Youngwood to Judge Reeves (Feb. 5, 2019), # 3 Exhibit 3 − Order, RMH Tech LLC v. PMC Industries, Inc., No. 16−cv− 01762−CMA−KMT (D. Col. Jan. 10, 2018))(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 02/19/2019)
356 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 347 MOTION for Settlement Conference filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 02/19/2019)
357 Rebuttal re 349 MOTION to Stay Proceedings Temporary Stay of Deadlines or, in the Alternative, for an Extension of Time filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Wallace, Michael) (Entered: 02/19/2019)
358 ATTACHMENT re 357 Rebuttal Exhibit 1 − March 7, 2018 Correspondence from Jonathan Youngwood by Randall S. Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2 − March 8, 2018 Correspondence from Mike Wallace, # 2 Exhibit 3 − March 12, 2018 Correspondence from Jonathan Youngwood, # 3 Exhibit 4 − March 13, 2018 Correspondence from Mike Wallace)(Wallace, Michael) (Entered: 02/19/2019)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson: Motion Hearing held on 2/20/2019 re 349 MOTION to Stay. Participants: John Youngwood, Janet Gochman, Kavitgha Sivashanker, Isaac Rethy, Joshua Tom, Mike Wallace, Charlie Ross, Becky Cowan and Jason Dare. The Magistrate Judge conferred with counsel but deferred ruling until after status conference with District Judge. (Lewis, Nijah) (Entered: 02/20/2019)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Telephone Conference held on 2/21/2019. PARTICIPANTS: Joshua F. Tom, Landon

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 51 of 54

02/26/2019
02/26/2019 02/26/2019 04/01/2019 04/01/2019 05/02/2019 05/08/2019 05/17/2019
05/20/2019 05/21/2019 06/10/2019 06/10/2019
06/11/2019

P. Thames, Jonathan K. Youngwood, Janet A. Gochman, Isaac Rethy, Kavitha Satya Sivashanker, Brooke Jarrett (Plaintiff's counsel); Micheal B. Wallace, Charles E. Rose, Charles E. Cowan, Rebecca B. Cowan (Defense counsel). The Court discussed with the parties issues relating to correspondences and motions. (TRS) (Entered: 02/21/2019)
TEXT−ONLY ORDER granting 347 Motion for Settlement Conference; granting 349 Motion to Stay Proceedings. Defendants are directed to file their Answer to the Amended Complaint 342 and respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint 345 by 2/26/2019. All other proceedings are stayed pending a settlement conference. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 2/26/2019. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE ON THIS MOTION. (DJ) (Entered: 02/26/2019)
359 ANSWER to 342 Amended Complaint, by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker.(Wallace, Michael) (Entered: 02/26/2019)
360 RESPONSE to Motion re 345 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint filed by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Wallace, Michael) (Entered: 02/26/2019)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Settlement Conference set for 5/20/2019 09:00 AM in Chambers 6.150 (Jackson) Anderson before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson (Lewis, Nijah) (Entered: 04/01/2019)
NOTICE of Calendar Setting: Settlement Conference set for set for 5/20/2019 09:00 AM in Chambers 6.150 (Jackson) Anderson before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson (Lewis, Nijah) (Lewis, Nijah) (Entered: 04/01/2019)
361 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney T. Russell Nobile by Madison County Sheriff's Deputies, Madison County, Mississippi (Nobile, T.) (Entered: 05/02/2019)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 361 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney T. Russell Nobile terminated. NO WRITTEN ORDER TO FOLLOW. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 5/8//2019. (ACF) (Entered: 05/08/2019)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson: Telephone Conference held on 5/17/2019. Participants: Mike Wallace, Charlie Ross, James Graves, Becky Cowan, Jason Dare, Katherine Bryant Snell, Joshua F. Tom, Jonathan Youngblood, Janet Gochman, Isaac Rethy, Brooke Jarrett. The Court discussed with counsel and resolved issue of parties appearing at 5/20/19 settlement conference. (Lewis, Nijah) (Entered: 05/17/2019)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson: Settlement Conference held on 5/20/2019. Parties engaged in settlement negotiations. To resume 6−10−19. (Lewis, Nijah) (Entered: 06/09/2019)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 6/10/2019 09:00 AM in Chambers 6.150 (Jackson) Anderson before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson (Lewis, Nijah) (Entered: 05/21/2019)
362 AGREED ORDER LIFTING STAY FOR LIMITED PURPOSE OF ALLOWING PLAINTIFFS TO FILE AND SERVE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 6/10/19 (Lewis, Nijah) (Entered: 06/10/2019)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson: Status Conference held on 6/10/2019. The Court discussed the case with counsel. A telephonic status conference will be set for June 27, 2019 at 2:00 pm. Appearances: Charles Ross, Michael Wallace, James Graves, Jason Dare, Becky Cowan, Jeremy Williams (Chief Deputy), Randy Tucker (Sheriff), Brooke Jarrett, Janet Gochman, Issac Rethy, Joshua Tom, and Jon Youngwood. (Lewis, Nijah) (Entered: 06/11/2019)
Set/Reset Hearings: Telephonic Status Conference set for 6/27/2019 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson. Counsel for Plaintiff shall initiate the conference call; and once all parties are on the line, contact the Court at 601−608−4440 (Lewis, Nijah) (Entered: 06/11/2019)

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 52 of 54

06/11/2019
06/12/2019 06/19/2019 06/27/2019
07/05/2019 07/22/2019 07/24/2019 08/05/2019 08/14/2019 08/30/2019 08/30/2019
08/30/2019 09/06/2019

363 AMENDED COMPLAINT (Second) against Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker, Slade Moore, filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Bessie Thomas, Steven Smith, Latoya Brown, Nicholas Singleton, Betty Jean Williams Tucker. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Census Tract Map, # 2 Exhibit B − Roadblock Policy, # 3 Exhibit C − Roadblock Notice, # 4 Exhibit D − Sobriety Checkpoint Policy)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 06/11/2019)
364 Summons Issued as to Slade Moore. (VM) (Entered: 06/12/2019)
365 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Lawrence Blackmon, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Bessie Thomas, Steven Smith, Latoya Brown, Nicholas Singleton, Betty Jean Williams Tucker. Slade Moore served on 6/18/2019, answer due 7/9/2019. (Thomas, Landon) (Entered: 06/19/2019)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson: Settlement Conference held on 6/27/2019. The Court conducted further settlement negotiations. To be continued. Appearances: Charles Ross, Michael Wallace, James Graves, Jason Dare, Becky Cowan, Jeremy Williams (Chief Deputy), Randy Tucker (Sheriff), Brooke Jarrett, Janet Gochman, Issac Rethy, Joshua Tom, and Jon Youngwood. (Lewis, Nijah) (Entered: 07/05/2019)
Set/Reset Hearings: Telephonic Settlement Conference continued to and set for 7/22/2019 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson. Counsel for Plaintiff shall initiate the conference call; and once all parties are on the line, contact the Court at 601−608−4440 (Lewis, Nijah) (Entered: 07/05/2019)
NOTICE OF CANCELLATION: The Settlement Conference set for today, 7/22/19 at 11:00 am, has been cancelled. (Lewis, Nijah) (Entered: 07/22/2019)
Set/Reset Hearings: TELEPHONIC Settlement Conference set for 8/14/2019 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson. Counsel for Plaintiff shall initiate the conference call; and once all parties are on the line, contact the Court at 601−608−4440. (Lewis, Nijah) (Entered: 07/24/2019)
NOTICE:.The Telephonic Settlement Conference set for 8/14/2019 at 9:30 AM will be conducted in−person in Chambers 6.150 (Jackson) Anderson before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson (Lewis, Nijah) (Entered: 08/05/2019)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson: Settlement Conference held on 8/14/2019. Participants: Jonathan Youngwood; Josh Tom, Isaac Rethy, Janet Gochman, Charlie Ross, Michael Wallace, James Graves, Jason Dare, Becky Cowan, Sheriff Randy Tucker, Katie Snell. Settlements efforts continuing. (Lewis, Nijah) (Entered: 08/15/2019)
366 **ERROR** Disregard this entry. MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Christopher Shields by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Thames, Landon) Modified on 8/30/2019 (VM). (Entered: 08/30/2019)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to 366 : Pursuant to the Administrative Procedures for Electronic Case Filing Section 2.C. and FED.R.Civ.P.11 an attorney's password issued by the court combined with the user's identification (login) serves as the attorney's signature for Rule 11 and other purposes. Attorneys should not permit other attorneys to use their login and password for any ECF filing. Document #366 will be disregarded and the attorney with the electronic signature on the document should re−file document. (VM) (Entered: 08/30/2019)
367 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Christopher Shields by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Herbert Anthony Green, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Marvin McField, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Thames, Landon) (Entered: 08/30/2019)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 367 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Christopher K. Shields − PHV terminated. NO WRITTEN ORDER TO FOLLOW. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 9/6/2019. (ACF) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 53 of 54

09/12/2019 09/12/2019 09/20/2019 09/20/2019
09/20/2019 09/23/2019 09/23/2019 09/23/2019 09/23/2019 10/03/2019 10/03/2019
10/09/2019 10/11/2019 10/21/2019 10/23/2019

368 MOTION to Amend/Correct Heading by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Cowan, Rebecca) (Entered: 09/12/2019)
369 ORDER granting Defendants' unopposed 368 Motion to Amend Heading to reflect the dismissal of Plaintiffs Marvin McField and Herbert Anthony Green pursuant to prior Order 242 . The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the docket of the case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 9/12/2019. (ACF) (Entered: 09/12/2019)
Set Hearings: Telephone Conference set for 9/20/2019 03:00 PM before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves (TRS) (Entered: 09/20/2019)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Telephone Conference held on 9/20/2019. PARTICIPANTS: Joshua Tom, Jonathan Youngwood, and Issac Rethy (Plaintiff's counsel); Mike Wallace (Defense counsel). The Court and parties discussed the status of the case. A settlement hearing was set for 10/3/19 at 1:00 PM. (TRS) (Entered: 09/20/2019)
Set Hearings: Settlement Hearing set for 10/3/2019 01:00 PM in Courtroom 5B (Jackson) Reeves before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves (TRS) (Entered: 09/20/2019)
370 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Consent Decree)(Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 09/23/2019)
371 MEMORANDUM in Support re 370 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment filed by Lawrence Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas, Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Tom, Joshua) (Entered: 09/23/2019)
372 MOTION for Protective Order by Madison County, Mississippi, Randall S. Tucker (Cowan, Rebecca) (Entered: 09/23/2019)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to 370 : Proposed orders are not to be electronically filed as a separate pleading or as an attachment to a pleading, but instead are to be provided to chambers by e−mail (Court's Administrative Procedures for Electronic Case Filing Sec.5.B.). (VM) (Entered: 09/23/2019)
Set Hearings: **TIME CHANGE ONLY** Settlement Hearing set for 10/3/2019 02:00 PM in Courtroom 5B (Jackson) Reeves before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves (TRS) (Entered: 10/03/2019)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves. APPEARANCES: Jonathan K. Youngwood, Joshua F. Tom, Brooke Jarrett, Isaac Rethy, Janet Gochman, and Nihara Karim Choudhri (Plaintiff's counsel), Lawrence Blackmon, Khadafy Manning, Quinnetta Manning, Nicholas Singleton, Bessie Thomas, and Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Plaintiffs); Michael B. Wallace, Charles E. Ross, Jason Dare, Katherine Bryant Snell, and Rebecca Cowan (counsel for Defendants), Sheriff Randall S. Tucker and Chief Deputy Williams (Defendants). The Court granted the 370 Joint Motion for Approve Consent Judgment. An order is forthcoming. Settlement Conference held on 10/3/2019 Court Reporter/Transcriber Tamika Bartee, Telephone number 601−720−3862. (TRS). (Entered: 10/03/2019)
373 ORDER granting 370 Motion to Approve Consent Judgment. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 10/09/2019. (EP) (Entered: 10/09/2019)
374 AMENDED ORDER granting 370 Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Decree. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 10/11/2019 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Consent Decree) (EP) (Entered: 10/11/2019)
375 ORDER denying 372 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 10/21/2019. (EP) (Entered: 10/21/2019)
376 AGREED FINAL JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE AS TO DAMAGES CLAIMS BY KHADAFY MANNING AND QUINNETTA THOMAS MANNING ONLY. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that any and all claims for damages that were or could have been filed by Plaintiffs, Khadafy

Case: 3:17-cv-347 As of: 11/21/2019 02:18 PM CST 54 of 54
Manning and Quinnetta Thomas Manning, against Madison County, Mississippi, Sheriff Randall S. Tucker, and Deputy Sheriff Slade Moore are hereby dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear their own fees, costs and expenses. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 10/22/2019 (VM) (Entered: 10/23/2019)