Morrow v. City of Tenaha Deputy City Marshal Washington, 277 F.R.D. 172

Plaintiffs move for a Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive/declaratory class against Tenaha and officials over an alleged discriminatory interdiction program.
Court stayed ruling pending mediation and then Wal-Mart v. Dukes decision; Wal-Mart held part of the class could be certified (injunctive/declaratory) but not monetary claims.
Court grants in part a Rule 23(b)(2) class for injunctive/declaratory relief, and declines certification of monetary damages.
Plaintiffs allege Tenaha’s program targeted racial/ethnic minorities for stops, detentions, searches, seizures, and asset forfeitures; program began after Washington joined Tenaha in 2006 and continues in some form.
Evidence includes officer depositions (Washington, Whatley, Walker) describing stops and discretionary seizures; Texas law required racial profiling reporting which was not kept, supporting a disruption/inference of discriminatory conduct.
Court modifies the proposed class definition to focus on minority travelers stopped by defendants for alleged traffic violations after November 1, 2006, and finds the class adequately defined for injunctive relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is a Rule 23(b)(2) class appropriate here?	Plaintiffs argue a citywide practice violates Equal Protection and warrants injunctive relief.	Defendants argue relief should be limited and class not properly cohesive for injunctive relief.	Yes; the (b)(2) class is appropriate for injunctive/declaratory relief.
Do adverse inferences affect certification due to failure to collect racial profiling data?	Inference supports showing discriminatory practice.	Inference would be improper or prejudicial.	Yes; adverse inference permitted on those issues.
Do Fifth Amendment assertions by Russell and Green block class certification?	Fifth Amendment refusals show relevant information on common issues.	Restraint from answering should not bind the class.	Adverse inferences apply to various Rule 23 factors.
Is the class adequately defined and ascertainable?	Proposed class includes minorities traveling near Tenaha post-2006 subject to interdiction.	Class definition too vague; some named plaintiffs not within the class.	Court adopts a modified, ascertainable class definition centered on minority travelers stopped for alleged traffic violations.
Can monetary damages be certified with a Rule 23(b)(2) class?	Plaintiffs seek damages alongside injunctive relief.	Wal-Mart prohibits monetary relief in a (b)(2) class unless incidental.	No monetary damages; only injunctive/declaratory relief certified.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (monetary damages cannot be certified under (b)(2) unless incidental to injunctive relief)
Castano v. American Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 1996) (rigorous analysis required for Rule 23; overlap with merits allowed but not denial on merits.)
Unger v. Amedisys Inc., 401 F.3d 316 (5th Cir. 2005) (plaintiff bears burden to show Rule 23 requirements are met.)
In re Monumental Life Ins. Co., 365 F.3d 408 (5th Cir. 2004) (courts may modify class definitions for precision; class cohesiveness considerations.)
Chavez v. The Illinois State Police, 251 F.3d 612 (7th Cir. 2001) (disputed statistical comparisons to general population; distinguishable from Chavez context.)
East Texas Motor Freight System, Inc. v. Rodrigues, 431 U.S. 395 (U.S. 1977) (civil rights class actions often involve pattern or practice claims.)
James v. City of Dallas, 254 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2001) (adequacy and typicality considerations in class actions.)
Maldonado v. Ochsner Clinic Foundation, 493 F.3d 521 (5th Cir. 2007) ( Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive relief requires cohesive class; caution against overbroad relief.)