Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Plaintiffs,
ORAL ARGUMENT
v. REQUESTED
Defendants.
Nicholas Singleton, Steven Smith, Bessie Thomas and Betty Jean Williams Tucker (“Plaintiffs”)
ask the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, to certify that they are proper
representatives of the class and subclasses of all persons similarly situated, and permit this
litigation to proceed as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), and to appoint the undersigned
counsel as counsel for the class, pursuant to Rule 23(g). 1 Pursuant to L.U. Civ. R. 7(b)(6)(A),
1
Plaintiffs do not seek certification of Herbert Anthony Green or Marvin McField as class
representatives. Motions to dismiss the claims of Mr. Green and Mr. McField for lack of prosecution are
pending; Plaintiffs do not oppose dismissal of Mr. Green’s and Mr. McField’s claims, but contend that
dismissal should be without prejudice. See ECF Nos. 180-183 (Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss claims of
Marvin McField and Herbert Anthony Green), 203-206 (Plaintiffs’ Responses); 207-208 (Defendants’
Rebuttals).
Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 226 Filed 03/14/18 Page 2 of 13
Plaintiffs are Black persons who have suffered, and remain at risk of suffering,
deprivations of their civil rights protected by the United States Constitution 2 as a result of the
policies, and/or longstanding customs and practices of the defendants, Madison County,
Mississippi and Sheriff Randall Tucker, sued herein in his official capacity (“Defendants”).
As set forth in Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Support of this Motion, Plaintiffs have
County’s Black citizens on the basis of their race, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment (the “Policing Program”). The Policing Program is executed by the
One of the key components of the Policing Program is the disproportionate placement of
are established to further a primary purpose of general crime control in these communities. The
Roadblock Program thus runs afoul of both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Another
essential component of the Policing Program is Defendants’ policy of suspicionless stops and
apartment complexes located in and around the city of Canton (the “Pedestrian Stop Program”).
MCSD deputies routinely stop Black individuals and ask to see their identification when they are
on their way to work, returning to their homes, or walking with friends. The Pedestrian Stop
2
In addition to their constitutional claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiffs also assert a
claim under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. Conduct that violates the Equal
Protection Clause also violates Title VI. See Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244, 276 n.23 (2003)
(“[D]iscrimination that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment committed by
an institution that accepts federal funds also constitutes a violation of Title VI.”).
2
076506-1038-13477-Active.25184213.5
Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 226 Filed 03/14/18 Page 3 of 13
Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), the Named Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all Black
persons who presently or in the future will reside in or travel through Madison County (the
“Targeting Class”) in order to obtain injunctive and declaratory relief to remedy the
constitutional violations caused by the Policing Program. Plaintiffs also seek to represent two
subclasses in order to obtain declaratory and injunctive relief to remedy the constitutional
violations caused by the Roadblock Program and the Pedestrian Stop Program.
The first subclass consists of all Black persons who travel or will travel by car through
majority-Black areas of Madison County. These persons have been or are likely to be stopped at
roadblocks established by the MCSD based on racially discriminatory criteria and/or for
purposes of general crime control (the “Roadblock Subclass”). Named Plaintiffs Lawrence
Blackmon, Latoya Brown, Nicholas Singleton, Bessie Thomas, and Betty Jean Williams Tucker
The second subclass consists of all Black persons who travel or will travel by foot in
Madison County’s majority-Black neighborhoods. These persons have been or are likely to be
subject to searches and/or seizures by the MCSD without reasonable suspicion or probable cause,
and/or on the basis of their race (the “Pedestrian Stop Subclass”). Named Plaintiffs Latoya
Brown, Khadafy Manning, and Steven Smith seek certification as representatives of the
requirements for certifications pursuant to Rule 23. The class and the subclasses are “so
numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). There are
questions of law and fact common to the class and to the two subclasses, thus satisfying the
commonality requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). These central common questions include
3
076506-1038-13477-Active.25184213.5
Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 226 Filed 03/14/18 Page 4 of 13
whether (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
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
In addition, the claims of the class representatives are “typical of the claims or defenses
of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). So, too, are the claims of the class representatives who
represent each of the two subclasses. The named representatives also will fairly and adequately
represent the interests of the class and the subclasses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). Finally, class
certification should be authorized here because “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).
Plaintiffs’ counsel can and will “fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class,” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(B), and should be appointed class counsel, based on the factors enumerated in
Rule 23(g)(1)(A).
Law in Support of this Motion, Plaintiffs therefore request that the Court:
(a) Determine that Plaintiffs’ proposed class and subclasses meet the requirements of
4
076506-1038-13477-Active.25184213.5
Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 226 Filed 03/14/18 Page 5 of 13
(c) Pursuant to Rule 23(g), appoint current counsel for Plaintiffs as counsel for the
In support of this Motion, Plaintiffs submit the exhibits listed below and an
10. Exhibit 10: Excerpts from Transcript of Deposition of Betty Jean Williams
Tucker (filed publicly in redacted form)
5
076506-1038-13477-Active.25184213.5
Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 226 Filed 03/14/18 Page 6 of 13
36. Exhibit 36: Declaration of Betty Jean Williams Tucker (Mar. 5, 2018)
6
076506-1038-13477-Active.25184213.5
Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 226 Filed 03/14/18 Page 7 of 13
7
076506-1038-13477-Active.25184213.5
Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 226 Filed 03/14/18 Page 8 of 13
64. Exhibit 64: Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests For
Admission (Oct. 20, 2017)
65. Exhibit 65: MC-INT 1-1, Narrative description of roles and responsibilities
within the MCSD, attached to Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’
First Set of Interrogatories (Oct. 20, 2017)
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)
72. Exhibit 72: Elizabeth Crisp, Racial profiling accusations thrown at Madison
sheriff in board meeting, THE CLARION-LEDGER (Nov. 6,
2007)
73. Exhibit 73: Elizabeth Crisp, House panel considers bill to outlaw racial
profiling, THE CLARION-LEDGER (Jan. 14, 2009)
8
076506-1038-13477-Active.25184213.5
Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 226 Filed 03/14/18 Page 9 of 13
75. Exhibit 75: Lacey McLaughlin, Making Amends, JACKSON FREE PRESS
(Aug. 17, 2011)
76. Exhibit 76: Madison County Sheriff’s Deputy Captain Randy Tucker to Run
for Madison County Sheriff, Y’ALL POLITICS (Jan. 19, 2011)
77. Exhibit 77: Memo from Sheriff Tucker to All Deputies/Employees (Jan. 3,
2012)
80. Exhibit 80: Madison sheriff responds to Jackson councilman’s remarks, THE
CLARION-LEDGER (Jan. 2, 2016), available at
https://www.clarionledger.com/videos/news/local/2016/01/04/
78247954/
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)
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)
88. Exhibit 88: Letter from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
to City of Ridgeland (Dec. 3, 2015)
9
076506-1038-13477-Active.25184213.5
Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 226 Filed 03/14/18 Page 10 of 13
89. Exhibit 89: MC-RFP 2–1, 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)
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 Smith’s Responses and Objections
to Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories (Oct. 23, 2017)
96. Exhibit 96: MC-RFP-Inc. Rep. 040697, Incident Report (Apr. 28, 2017); MC-
RFP-Inc. Rep. 058887, Incident Report (Feb. 21, 2015); MC-RFP-
Inc. Rep. 025721, Incident Report (June 5, 2014)
97. Exhibit 97: MC-RFP-Inc. Rep. 047927, Incident Report (Feb. 14, 2017)
98. Exhibit 98: MC-RFP-Inc. Rep. 032317, Incident Report (Nov. 18, 2015); MC-
RFP-Inc. Rep. 007631, Incident Report (Dec. 1, 2012); MC-RFP-
Inc. Rep. 007292, Incident Report (Nov. 16, 2012); MC-RFP-Inc.
Rep. 004175, Incident Report (Aug. 15, 2012); MC-RFP-Inc. Rep.
025778, Incident Report (June 6, 2014)
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)
10
076506-1038-13477-Active.25184213.5
Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 226 Filed 03/14/18 Page 11 of 13
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)
11
076506-1038-13477-Active.25184213.5
Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 226 Filed 03/14/18 Page 12 of 13
12
076506-1038-13477-Active.25184213.5
Case 3:17-cv-00347-WHB-LRA Document 226 Filed 03/14/18 Page 13 of 13