Attala County, et al. v. Doug Evans

Greenville, Mississippi civil rights lawyers represented Plaintiff, who sued Defendant on civil rights violation theories under 42 U.S.C. 1983.



A county chapter of the NAACP and four individual Plaintiffs brought

suit against the district attorney for the Mississippi counties in which they

live, claiming he regularly discriminates against black potential jurors by

striking them from juries because of their race. The Plaintiffs asserted

violations of their own constitutional rights to serve on juries. The district

court determined that it should apply one of the Supreme Court's abstention doctrines and dismissed the case. We do not analyze abstention and instead conclude that the Plaintiffs do not have standing.



The Mississippi Fifth Circuit Court District covers seven counties,

including Attala County, in the north central region of the state. The District

Attorney for that district is Doug Evans, who, according to the complaint,

has held the office since 1992. In November 2019, this suit began with the

filing of a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern

District of Mississippi against Evans in his official capacity as District

Attorney.



The organizational Plaintiff is the chapter of the NAACP in Attala

County. It brought suit "on behalf of its members, who are Black citizens of

Attala County, are qualified for jury service in Circuit Court, and are subject

to Evans' policy, custom, or usage of racial discrimination in jury selection.”

The four individual Plaintiffs are African-Americans who reside in the state's

Fifth Circuit Court District and are eligible for jury service.



Suit was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an alleged violation of

their Fourteenth Amendment rights of prospective jurors. The complaint

refers to news reports of an investigation by a group of journalists into

criminal trials in the state's Fifth Circuit District. The data the journalists

compiled allegedly supports that Evans and his office strike jurors due to their

race. The complaint also specifically refers to the multiple trials of Curtis

Flowers for murder, which generated claims that Evans and his office were

improperly striking black jurors.



* * *



Our decision is unrelated to the plausibility of the allegations about

jury selection in the state circuit court district. The claims' gravity is

supported not only by the journalists' investigation referenced in the record

but also by court decisions that the district attorney committed Batson

violations in trials of Curtis Flowers. We hold only that these Plaintiffs have

not alleged a certainly impending threat or a substantial risk to their rights

that would satisfy the requirements of Article III

Evans moved to dismiss on the basis that Plaintiffs lacked standing,

that the claims were not ripe, and that the court should abstain. The district

court did not discuss standing or ripeness, but it held that abstention was

compelled by the Supreme Court’s decision in O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S.

488 (1974). It therefore dismissed the suit. The Plaintiffs timely appealed.





Affirmed on appeal.