Case: Morrow v. City of Tenaha
2:08-cv-00288 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Filed Date: July 24, 2008
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
On July 24, 2008, plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, against the City of Tenaha. The plaintiffs were all individuals who were traveling on public roads in or near Tenaha, Texas, when, they say, they were illegally stopped and their property seized. They sued under the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable searches and seizures) and Fourteenth Amendments (equal protection), actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs were represented by lawyers from Legal Aid, the American Civil Liberties Union (Racial Justice Program, Criminal Law Reform Project, Texas chapter, and national), and from private practice. They asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief as well as monetary relief including compensatory and punitive damages as well as legal costs.
The plaintiffs claimed that law enforcement officials in and around the City of Tenaha had developed an illegal practice of targeting, stopping, detaining, searching, and often seizing property from people who appeared to be non-white or who were traveling with non-white passengers. The named plaintiffs claimed that they had been victims of such stops.
The plaintiffs sought a class certification of similarly situated persons consisting of: (1) people who were, or appeared to be, members of racial or ethnic minority groups and those in their company, and (2) were or would be traveling in, through, or near Tenaha since July 27, 2006, and (3) were, or were subject to being stopped and detained and/or arrested by one or more of the defendants without an articulable suspicion of criminal activity, to find valuable property or money.
The individual plaintiffs were allegedly stopped without warrants or legal justification and were then either detained or threatened with detention, and had property seized in amounts varying from $3,969 to $50,000. Plaintiffs were allegedly falsely prosecuted for crimes such as money laundering. One couple was allegedly told that their children would be put in foster care if they did not sign papers authorizing the seizure.
On August 29, 2011, the Court (Judge T. John Ward) granted in part the plaintiff's motion for class certification. Morrow v. Washington, 277 F.R.D. 172 (E.D. Tex. 2011). The Court granted the class certification for Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claims for injunctive and declaratory relief, but did not certify the class for Fourth Amendment search and seizure claims or for monetary relief. In the opinion, the Court cited to recordings from cameras in the police vehicles at the time of the stops. The Court drew an adverse inference from the failure of Tenaha's law enforcement agencies to collect and report racial profiling evidence, as required by Texas law. The Court also drew an adverse inference from two defendants' invocation of their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, during deposition. The Court modified the class definition, because it found that there was "articulable suspicion" for the stops (albeit not reasonable suspicion). The modified definition of the class consisted of (1) people who were, or appeared to be, members of racial or ethnic minority groups and those in their company, and (2) were, or would be, traveling in, through, or near Tenaha at any time after November 1, 2006, and (3) were subject to being stopped by one or more defendant for an alleged traffic violation. The defendants twice sought a discretionary interlocutory appeal of the class certification, but were twice denied.
On August 6, 2012, plaintiffs and defendants filed a joint motion for preliminary approval of a consent decree. The Consent Decree was extensive, with key terms including the following:
- All traffic stops shall be recorded in full by both video and audio recordings.
- Defendants shall maintain written documentation with details about traffic stops, detention, canine sniffs, searches, seizures, and/or forfeitures.
- Defendants will not use canines for routine traffic stops.
- Written notice shall be provided to a person before a canine sniff, before a consent search, and before the seizure of property. Before conducting a consent search, an officer must obtain written and oral video and audio recorded consent for the search.
- Defendants will track all asset forfeiture incident to traffic stops, and all such revenue will all be donated to non-profit organizations, used for audio and video equipment, or used for the annual training required by this decree.
- Internal review procedures will be instituted every quarter, and an impartial monitor will address compliance. Defendants also agreed to pay litigation costs (attorneys' fees and notice to the class).
On February 19, 2013, the Court (Judge Gilstrap) granted preliminary approval of the consent decree. Following a fairness hearing, the court granted final approval of the consent decree on August 8, 2013. The court appointed a monitor on October 9, 2013, who proceeded to file quarterly status reports.
On August 7, 2017, the plaintiffs moved to extend the duration of the Consent Decree, which was set to expire the next day. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants had a "poor record of compliance," necessitating an extension of the consent decree. There was a hearing on this motion on November 1, 2018, after which the parties renegotiated the settlement agreement. They filed a joint motion to approve the amended agreement on December 13, 2018, which the court approved. The agreement was substantially similar to the original consent decree, but extended the duration to the next two years with the opportunity for the plaintiffs to file for additional extensions.
On May 19, 2020, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Approval of Notice to Class for Potential Award, which Judge Gilstrap granted on June 25, 2020.
On October 25, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion for attorneys’ fees incurred from September 2016-April 2019, and on May 18, 2020, filed another motion for attorneys’ fees incurred from May 2019-March 2020.
The Court, on March 18, 2020, scheduled the Final Hearing for July 21, 2020.
On September 15, 2020, Judge Gilstrap granted-as-modified both of the plaintiffs’ contested motion for award for interim attorneys’ fees and costs incurred during the fee period from September 1, 2026 to April 30, 2019. The plaintiffs were awarded $289,433.96 to be paid by the defendants. 2020 WL 5534486.
The plaintiffs, on March 17, 2021, filed a motion for award of interim attorneys’ fees incurred during the fee period from April 1 to December 31, 2020. The plaintiffs’ motion sought to order the City defendant to pay $88,553.33 for unpaid fees. However, the judge denied this motion on April 9, 2021. On April 15, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the order denying fees, which was subsequently denied by the court on November 24, 2021, because the motion was filed untimely as the Court had instructed the parties that all motions must be filed before the Final Hearing. 2021 WL 10169551.
On December 20, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a notice to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the order on November 24, 2021, that denied their motion for attorneys’ fees. . On February 15, 2023, a Fifth Circuit panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Smith, Barksdale, and Haynes, vacated the District Court’s judgment. The Court also ordered the City to pay the plaintiffs the costs on appeal. 2023 WL 2009926.
The plaintiffs filed an opposed motion for attorney fees on March 17, 2021. On April 12, 2021, Judge Gilstrap denied the plaintiffs’ motion for attorney fees. The plaintiffs, consequently, filed a notice to appeal the order denying the motion for attorney fees on December 20, 2021. The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings on March 9, 2023.
On August 23, 2023, Judge Gilstrap granted-as-modified the plaintiffs’ motion for award of interim attorneys’ fees and costs and awarded the plaintiffs $16,020.00 to be paid by the City Defendants. The judge denied-as-moot the outstanding claims or requests for relief. 2023 WL 5435610.
The plaintiffs appealed the district court’s award of interim fees to the Fifth Circuit on September 15, 2023.
As on December 28, 2023, this case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Emily Goldman (3/2/2013)
Virginia Weeks (5/16/2018)
Alex Moody (4/17/2020)
Andrew Eslich (1/16/2024)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4384960/parties/morrow-v-city-of-tenaha-deputy-city-marshal-barry-washington/
Booth, Amatullah Khaliha (Texas)
Choudhury, Nusrat Jahan (New York)
Ackerberg, Peter M (Texas)
Adams, Richard Andrew (Texas)
Alderman, Galen Robert (Texas)
Booth, Amatullah Khaliha (Texas)
Choudhury, Nusrat Jahan (New York)
DePaul, Philip Rudolph (Texas)
Faillace, Michael Antonio (Texas)
Garrigan, Timothy Borne (Texas)
Guillory, David Joseph (Texas)
Hannah, Roderick Victor (Texas)
Mulholland, Colin James (Texas)
Renninger, Nicholas David (Texas)
Robertson, Rebecca Lynn (Texas)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Resources
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4384960/morrow-v-city-of-tenaha-deputy-city-marshal-barry-washington/
Last updated July 29, 2026, 2:17 a.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: July 24, 2008
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The plaintiffs were certified as a class consisting of: (1) people who are, or appear to be, members of racial or ethnic minority groups and those in their company, and (2) were, or will be, traveling in, through, or near Tenaha at any time after November 1, 2006, and (3) were, or are, subject to being stopped by one or more defendant for an alleged traffic violation.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
City
City of Tenaha
County
Shelby County
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Unreasonable search and seizure
Other Dockets:
Eastern District of Texas 2:08-cv-00288
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Discrimination Area:
Discrimination Basis:
National origin discrimination
Affected Race(s):
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Over/Unlawful Detention (facilities)
Policing:
Case Summary of Morrow v. City of Tenaha, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/12322/ (last updated 1/16/2024).