tslFAJggf tnpy

APR iB 202+
IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF THE
OF HINDS COUNTY,

G MABIL PLAINTIFF

CAUSE N0. G-2024-429

KARRISA WLEY,
MISSISSIPCAPITOL POLICE,
MISSISSIPSTATE CRIME LAB,
JOHN DOE ERS0N(S) 1-5, and
loHN DoE (rES) 1-s DEFENDANTS

ER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' EMERGENCY TEMPORARY

G ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

THIS USE is before the Court on Plaintiffs Complaint for Emergency Temporary

Resffainin Order and Preliminary Injunction. This Court held hearing on the matter on April

L8,2024, ving all argument and evidence, Defendants were noticed concerning the

hearing; h ever, the matter was called three [3) times in the corridor and no Defendant or

counsel th reof appeared. Having reviewe d the Complaint and the argument presented at

hearing, e Court finds that some emergency reliefrequested is in the interest ofequity,

M pi Rule of Civil Procedure 65 does not prescribe the circumstances in which a

injunction maybe granted; the grantor denial of a preliminary iniunction remains

a matter r the trial court's discretion, exercised [n conformity with traditional equity
practice. V. Griffith, Mr'ssisslppi Chancery Proctice, g 442 {2d ed. 1950J. However,

Mississipp case law has provided guidance in the consideration of preliminary injunctions.

The court ould balance the equities and make four findings: (1) there exists a substantial

likelihood t the plaintiffwill prevail on the merits; (2] the injunction is necessary to prevent

irreparabl harm; [3) threatened injury to the plaintiff outweighs the harm an injunction might

do to the fendant; and [4J entry of a preliminary injunction is consistent with the public

interest. of Durant v. Humphreys County Memorial Hospital/ Extended Care Faciliry, 587

So. 2d 2 (Miss. 1991J. Plaintiff alone bear the burden of demonstrating the need for

injunctive lief. A-1 PalletCo.v.CityofJackson,40So.3d563,568(Miss.2010J. lnthecase

at hand, th Court finds that Plaintiffhas demonstrated that these four factors have been met.

First Court finds that there exists a substantial likelihood that Plaintiff will prevail on

the m Dau Garang Mabil has been missing since March25,2024. Certain human remains

have been red in the Pearl River in Brookhaven, Mississippi, which fit the description

ofDau G Mabil. Plaintiffavers that Iaw enforcement has indicated an intention to release

such rema without an autopsy. Plaintiff, brother of Dau Garang Mabil, seeks to have the

human re ns held until such time as an autopsy may be performed by both the State and an

independ examiner procured bythe family. Given the nature of Mr. Mabil's disappearance

and the tion ofthe body found, it is likely that an autopsy will be required to determine if
foul play involved. Therefore, this Court finds that Plaintiff is substantially likely to

prevail on e merits of at least some claims.

Second, Court finds that Plaintiffhas demonstrated that an injunction is necessary to

prevent i le harm. If the human remains found are released without autopsy, any
potential dence will be compromised. Similarly, there is indication that the human remains

will be upon release. The same will render any forensic investigation impossible.

Absent interference, Plaintiffwill be unable to determine the cause of his brother's death.

This Cou finds that Plaintiffs injuries will be irreparable.

Next, s Court finds that the threatened injury to the Plaintifffar outweighs the harm an

injunction ght do to the Defendants. The in.jury to Plaintiffis set forth above. By contrast,

no harm come to Defendants ifthis Court grants the request to delay release ofthe body

until an a is perform. Therefore, the granting ofthis injunction will result in no real

irreparabl damage to the Defendants as opposed to substantial harm to Plaintiff if the

injunctio denied.

this Court finds that the entry of a preliminary injunction is consistent with the

public int rest. The public interest is obviously served in determining the actual cause of

death in a dely publicized missing person matter. Therefore, the public interest is served

by main ning the status quo in this matter to protect the interests of all parties until such

time as th autopsies may be con d u cted.

For the ns above, this Court finds that Plaintiffs Complaintfor Emergency Temporary

Restrain Order and Preliminary Injunction is well taken and is hereby granted. Therefore,

Defendan its agents, officers, employees, servants and attorneys, shall not release the human

remalns ntly presumed to be Dau Garang Mabil. Defendant Mississippi State Crime Lab

shall rm an autopsy on said remains as expeditiously as possible. [n addition, prior to

release same, Defendants shall permit an independent autopsy to be performed upon

said re with the costs to be borne by Plaintiff. Plaintiffshall immediately post bond
with the rk of the Hinds County Chancery Court in the amount of $100, the same being

this court as proper under thes

deemed
'"iiifl
SO ORD lED,ADJUDGED,AND DECREEDTHISthe -,-- lo . -
dayof Aprir.zozs.afi:
______v
(Arr.^.
,

tHnr.rcflton r. ;Ew;YNETH oMAS

5'r A' ; 0F lvliSSiSSlPPi FIRST DISTRICT

H INDS COUNTY
Encery Court in and for the
l, EDDIEJEAN CAR& Clerk of th€ Chancery
above mentioned County do hereby certiFy that fie
foregoi
is a true ano Loov as my office

this the
/ ?rr1icr
c --tay or-
EC die
2 oAl