Filed Date: Aug. 16, 2022
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is a case about the discriminatory practices of a police department in Lexington, Mississippi. On August 16, 2022, five residents of Mississippi filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. The plaintiffs sued the interim chief of police of Lexington, Mississippi and the former chief of police of Lexington, Sam Dobbins, in his individual capacity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Represented by private counsel, JULIAN, and the National Police Accountability Project, the plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief as well as compensatory and punitive damages.
The case was assigned to District Judge Tom S. Lee and Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker. The plaintiffs claimed that Black citizens faced discriminatory treatment by the Lexington Police Department. Black citizens were constantly subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures and arrests without cause in retaliation for speaking out about the difference in treatment. Black drivers were also regularly stopped during roadblocks set up in predominantly Black neighborhoods while white drivers were allowed to pass through without stopping. The plaintiffs also brought their claims against Dobbins, the former chief of police, who had been fired after being taped uttering racial slurs and homophobic remarks. The plaintiffs alleged that even though Dobbins had been fired he continued to torment Black residents and had been seen riding around in the passenger seat of police department cars with on-duty officers. They alleged that Dobbins had instructed the new interim police chief on how to continue his discriminatory practices against the Black residents of Lexington.
First, the plaintiffs alleged that the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment had been violated. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants’ unequal treatment of white citizens versus Black citizens was clear through the use of roadblocks only in Black neighborhoods as well as through their lack of stopping white citizens who proceeded through roadblocks without questioning. Second, the plaintiffs argued that their Fourth Amendment right to no unreasonable searches and seizures had been violated by the roadblocks conducted by the defendants without probable cause. Each plaintiff listed in the complaint had, at one point, been arrested by the defendants for a crime that they lacked the conduct for. Third, the plaintiffs alleged that their Fourteenth Amendment right to travel freely under the privileges and immunities clause had also been violated. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants’ practice of imposing fines upon Black travelers through false arrests impeded their right to travel freely. The suspicionless stops and constant roadblocks also interfered with this right. Fourth, the defendants had violated the plaintiffs’ freedom of speech by retaliating against them for advocating for improved police services. In count five, the plaintiffs claimed that their Fourth Amendment right to be free of excessive force was violated when the defendants assaulted the plaintiffs when they were not actively resisting officer commands. Count six asserted the same right under the Fourteenth Amendment due process right that protects pretrial detainees from the use of excessive force. Lastly, count seven alleged that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, had been violated.
On August 17, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and for a preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs asked the court for an immediate temporary restraining order that would block the Lexington Police Department from continuing its violation of the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
On September 13, 2022, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to provide evidence that showed a substantial likelihood of success on any of their claims. 2022 WL 4229321.
On October 3, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that added four Lexington police officers to the list of defendants.
On October 17, 2022, defendant Dobbins filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings and for the court to dismiss the amended complaint against him. The defendant argued that the plaintiffs brought their complaint based on policies and practices that he had instituted as Chief of Police, a position he no longer held and therefore could not be held individually liable for.
On November 8, 2022, the rest of the defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, summary judgment.
On April 11, 2023, the court granted in part and denied in part the motions for judgment on the pleadings. The court addressed each plaintiffs’ claims separately.
First, the court addressed the plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claims for false arrest. Plaintiff A’s claim was sustained. Plaintiff A was simply standing outside the station and no reasonable officer would have included that he had an intent to “provoke a breach of peace.” Plaintiff B’s claim was dismissed. Plaintiff B was arrested because of pills found in his car that were not prescribed to him which he does not dispute and therefore the officers had probable cause to arrest him. Next, Plaintiff C’s claim was dismissed. The court found that there was probable cause for both of the arrests that were brought forth in the complaint. Lastly, the court found that there was probable cause for the arrests of Plaintiff D and E.
Next, the court considered the plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim regarding retaliatory arrest/detention. Plaintiff A’s claim was dismissed. The court determined that it was reasonable at the time of his arrest for officers to conclude that his speech was not on a matter of public concern and therefore was not protected by the First Amendment. Plaintiff A had alleged that his questions regarding his sister’s bail were protected, but the court disagreed. The claims of Plaintiffs B, C, D, and E were dismissed as well. The court found that there was probable cause for these plaintiffs’ arrests and therefore could not have been retaliatory nor in violation of their First Amendment rights. The court granted the defendants’ motions on all of the Fourth/Fourteenth Amendment excessive force complaints, finding that either the officer was protected by qualified immunity or the use of force was not excessive.
The plaintiffs had brought three different claims under equal protections. First, the plaintiffs argued that the defendants had targeted the Black residents for municipal code enforcement. The court dismissed this claim because only Plaintiff D had brought forth allegations under this claim. The court found that both white residents and Black residents had been treated equally within these allegations.
Second, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had singled out Black residents for arrests without probable cause and retaliation. The court dismissed this argument as well, finding the plaintiffs' argument that the defendants failed to arrest white residents without probable cause lacked merit. In addition, only one plaintiff's false arrest claim had been sustained by the court. Therefore, the court concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown that there was a pattern of arrests without probable cause.
Third, the plaintiffs argued that the defendants had erected roadblocks to conduct illegal searches and seizures exclusively in predominantly Black neighborhoods while permitting white drivers to pass through without being stopped. The court first found that only Plaintiff B had standing since he was the only one that had actually been stopped at a roadblock. The court found that the plaintiff had brought a cognizable claim under the Fourth Amendment as the purposes brought forward for the roadblocks were impossible. Purposes such as general crime deterrence and generation of fine revenues were found impermissible purposes by the court. Plaintiff B’s equal protection claim was sustained as well. The right to travel argument was dismissed by the court, however, because there is no intrastate right to travel.
Lastly, the plaintiffs' Title VI claim was dismissed because plaintiffs had not alleged that the city of Lexington received federal financial assistance which was requisite to bring the claim.
After the court’s order, the only remaining claims were Plaintiff A’s Fourth Amendment claim for false arrest as well as Plaintiff B’s claim for damages and injunctive relief based on the violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights as to the roadblocks. 2023 WL 2899994.
On May 24, 2023, the court severed the claims of Plaintiff B from Plaintiff A. The new docket number for Plaintiff B was 3:23-CV-00333.
On July 15, 2024, defendant Shiers and defendant Dobbins filed motions for summary judgment, which the court denied on September 3, 2024. The court found that there were genuine issues of material fact as to the circumstances of Plaintiff A’s arrest, including Defendant Dobbins’ involvement.
Defendants’ appealed the court’s denial of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on October 3, 2024. In light of the defendant’s appeal, the district court stayed the proceedings.
On November 25, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify defendant’s interlocutory appeal as frivolous, lift the stay of proceedings, and proceed to trial. District Judge Tom S. Lee denied the motion on December 30, 2024.
On appeal, the parties reached a confidential settlement agreement through the Fifth Circuit Mediation Program. As a result, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal on January 16, 2025.
Back in the district court, the parties stipulated to dismiss the case as a result of their confidential settlement. District Judge Tom S. Lee dismissed the case with prejudice on January 17, 2025.
On February 14, 2025, the plaintiffs appealed the district court’s April 2023 order dismissing some of plaintiffs’ claims to the Fifth Circuit. The district court stayed the case in light of the pending appeal on September 29, 2025.
The Fifth Circuit heard oral arguments on February 3, 2026. On February 6, 2026, the Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding no reversible error in the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' claims. 2026 WL 323161.
On March 5, 2026, the district court ordered that the plaintiffs file a response to the defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees by March 27, 2026.
As of March 8, 2026, this case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Rhea Sharma (11/16/2023)
Skylar Parpan (2/22/2026)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64895634/parties/harris-v-dobbins/
Bellinder, Thomas J. (Mississippi)
Anderson, Garrett Alan (Mississippi)
Bland, Mallory K. (Mississippi)
Butler, Gregory Todd (Mississippi)
Chamberlain, Marcellus D. (Mississippi)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64895634/harris-v-dobbins/
Last updated March 8, 2026, 1:40 p.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Aug. 16, 2022
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Five Black residents of Mississippi.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
City
City of Lexington
Interm Chief of Police
Private Entity/Person
Sam Dobbins
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Unreasonable search and seizure
Other Dockets:
Southern District of Mississippi 3:22-cv-00479
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 24-60511
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 25-60073
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Discrimination Area:
Discrimination Basis:
Affected Race(s):
Policing:
Case Summary of Harris v. Dobbins, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/44179/ (last updated 2/22/2026).