Case: 25CH1:24-cv-00429 Document #: 15 Filed: 04/22/2024 Page 1 of 7

IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

BUL GARANG MABIL PLAINTIFF

V. CAUSE NO. G2-2024-429

KARISSA BOWLEY,
MISSISSIPPI CAPITOL POLICE,
MISSISSIPPI STATE CRIME LAB,
JOHN DOE PERSON(S) 1-5,
JOHN DOE ENTITY (IES) 1-5 DEFENDANTS

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT

KARISSA BOWLEY’S MOTION TO CLARIFY, MOTION TO REALIGN THE
PARTIES, AND/OR MOTION TO MODIFY THE INJUNCTION AND
SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW

COMES NOW, Bul Garang Mabil, the Plaintiff, by and through undersigned

counsel of record, and files this his Response in Opposition to Defendant Karissa

Bowley’s Motion to Clarify, Motion to Realign the Parties, and/or Motion to Modify the

Injunction, and would show unto the court the following, to wit:

1. Bul Garang Mabil, the brother of Dau Garang Mabil and the uncle of Dau Garang

Mabil’s minor son, filed a Complaint for Emergency Temporary Restraining Order and

Preliminary Injunction on April 17, 2024. Doc. #: 2 and 3. Bul Garang Mabil and his

deceased brother Dau Garang Mabil are two of the “Lost Boys of Sudan.” They resettled

in Jackson, Mississippi 23 years ago after fleeing a civil war between North and South

Sudan.
Case: 25CH1:24-cv-00429 Document #: 15 Filed: 04/22/2024 Page 2 of 7

2. In 2018, Dau Garang Mabil, Deceased, became a father. A copy of the minor

child’s birth certificate was presented to the Court on April 18, 2024 during a hearing on

the Complaint for an Emergency Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary

Injunction. The minor child’s mother has now joined in the Complaint for Emergency

Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. Doc. #: 12.

3. Bul Garang Mabil filed the matter pro se on April 17, 2024. Doc. #: 2 & 3. Prior

to hiring undersigned counsel, a process server agreed to serve the Complaint. Bul

Garang Mabil, however, was not aware that the clerk was required to issue a Summons

for each defendant and/or that he should have filed a Notice of Hearing. Mississippi Rule

of Civil Procedure 4(a) provides: “[u]pon filing of the complaint, the clerk shall forthwith

issue a summons.” In addition, “[t]he official comment to Mississippi Rule of Civil

Procedure 4 states, `[a]fter an action is commenced, the clerk is required to issue a

separate summons for each defendant except in the case of summons by publication.’”

Fletcher v. Limeco Corp., 996 So. 2d 773, 777 (Miss. 2008). The docket sheet shows the

clerk did not issue summons.

4. Bul Garang Mabil retained counsel on the evening of April 17, 2024 and informed

undersigned counsel a hearing was scheduled for 9 a.m. on April 18, 2024. During

undersigned counsel’s meeting with Bul Garang Mabil, he provided undersigned counsel

with copies of his Complaint for Emergency Temporary Restraining Order and

Preliminary Injunction and Supplement to Complaint for Emergency Temporary

Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. See, Doc. #: 2 and 3. When undersigned

counsel asked if the Complaint had been served, Bul Marang Mabil answered in the

affirmative.

2
Case: 25CH1:24-cv-00429 Document #: 15 Filed: 04/22/2024 Page 3 of 7

5. On the morning of April 18, 2024, undersigned counsel appeared in Court with

Bul Garang Mabil. The process server also appeared at the Hinds County Chancery Court

and signed three Proofs of Service before a deputy clerk. Doc. #: 5, 6, & 7. The Proofs of

Service contained the following provision: “I, the undersigned process server, served the

summons and petition upon the person or entity named in the manner set forth below…”

Doc. #: 5, 6, & 7. Undersigned counsel gave the deputy sheriff assigned to your Honor’s

courtroom a copy of same and he delivered them to your Honor’s chambers. Because

undersigned counsel did not file the instant Complaint, undersigned counsel did not know

that the clerk had not issued the Summons with the Complaint and/or that the Complaint

was served without a Summons or a Notice of Hearing.

6. On April 18, 2024, Paloma Wu entered an appearance on behalf of “Mrs. Karissa

Bowley.” Doc. #: 10. Paloma Wu filed a Motion to Clarify, Motion to Realign the

Parties and a Motion to Modify the Preliminary Injunction. Doc. #: 11. In her motion,

Karissa Bowley informed the Court that she did not receive notice of the April 18, 2024

hearing. Doc. #: 11, p. 1 of 4. Karissa Bowley did not seek dismissal based on

insufficient service of process. She stated: “[s]he would have attended had she known.

She would have testified that she embraces the Court’s granted relief to the extent

described below; she would have granted the Plaintiff’s request had he asked.” Doc. #:

11, p. 1 of 4.

7. In the third defense in her Answer, Karissa Bowley states “[u]nder Miss. Code

Ann. § 41-37-25, Karissa Bowley has elected to permit an additional autopsy, subject to

certain parameters.” Doc. #: 13, p. 8 of 11. In her Amended Answer, her counsel wrote:

3
Case: 25CH1:24-cv-00429 Document #: 15 Filed: 04/22/2024 Page 4 of 7

“Karissa does now and would previously have authorized this had the Plaintiff asked

her.” Doc. #: 14, p. 1 of 12.

8. There is no question that “[t]he courts have generally agreed that the primary and

paramount rights to possession of the body of a decedent and to control of the burial or

other legal disposition of the body are in the surviving spouse. The right of a surviving

spouse to the custody of the dead body for purposes of burial is not an absolute right, but

one which, while normally observed, is nonetheless subject to judicial control.” Spanich

v. Reichelder, 90 Ohio App. 3d 148, 152 (COA 1993). “Furthermore, the surviving

spouse’s right to control the burial or disposal of the decedent’s body is dependent upon

the peculiar circumstances of each case, and may be waived by consent or otherwise.”

Id. (citing 22A American Jurisprudence 2d (1988), Dead Bodies, Section 21).

9. Because Karissa Bowley conceded in her motion to clarify, Answer and

Amended Answer,” this Court should not disturb its April 18, 2024 Order which

authorized Bul Harang Mabil to obtain an independent autopsy and should not impose the

restrictions listed below on Bul Harang Mabil’s independent autopsy:

“1. The additional autopsy that the Plaintiff requests may only occur after all
law enforcement entities which are or which will be, in the future,
investigating Dau’s death have completed all aspects of their investigation
which may require access to Dau’s remains;

2. The additional autopsy that the Plaintiff requests may only be conducted
by a pathologist who is at least as qualified as is generally required of
pathologists conducting autopsies for the State of Mississippi, specifically,
he or she must be (1) “an M.D. or D.O. who is certified in anatomic
pathology by the American Board of Pathology,” and (2) “a competent
pathologist who is designated by the State Medical Examiner of the
Department of Public Safety as a pathologist qualified to perform
postmortem examinations and autopsies;

4
Case: 25CH1:24-cv-00429 Document #: 15 Filed: 04/22/2024 Page 5 of 7

3. The additional autopsy that the Plaintiff requests must be completed

within one month after the last law enforcement entity investigating Dau’s
death has completed its investigation.”

10. Bul Harang Mabil sought relief from this Court after Capitol Police officials

refused to tell him whether an autopsy would be performed before Dau Harang Mabil’s

body was released to Karissa Bowley. Doc. #: 2 and 3. Although Capitol Police would

not divulge whether the law enforcement agency would conduct an autopsy, they asked

Bul Garang Mabil to submit to DNA testing. Bul Garang Mabil submitted to DNA

testing on April 15, 2024 two days after Dau Garang Mabil’s body was found floating in

the Pearl River.

11. The Jackson Police Department is investigating Dau Bul Harang’s disappearance

and death. Bul Harang Mabil has asked the Department of Justice to take over the

investigation. Time is of the essence. Dau Harang Mabil’s presence in the Pearl River

already may have compromised efforts to determine what caused his death. With Karissa

Bowley waiving her objections to the independent autopsy, Bul Harang Mabil should not

be forced to wait until all law enforcement entities complete their investigations before

the independent autopsy ordered by this Court is performed.

12. Karissa Bowley also urged this Court to require the pathologist selected by Bul

Harang Mabil to be as qualified as pathologists who conduct autopsies for the State of

Mississippi. Doc#: 11. Suffice it to say, the pathologist has “a MD and is certified in

anatomic pathology by the American Board of Pathology. While the pathologist has

never been “designated by the State Medical Examiner of the Department of Public

Safety as a pathologist qualified to perform postmortem examinations and autopsies in

Mississippi,” there is no Mississippi law which requires such. Furthermore, if the State

5
Case: 25CH1:24-cv-00429 Document #: 15 Filed: 04/22/2024 Page 6 of 7

Medical Examiner of the Department of Public Safety is allowed to designate the

pathologist to perform an independent autopsy of Dau Harang Mabil, Bul Harang Mabil’s

request would be pointless. Consequently, this Court should deny Karissa Bowley’s

request to require the pathologist to be “designated by the State Medical Examiner of the

Department of Public Safety as a pathologist qualified to perform postmortem

examinations and autopsies in Mississippi.”

13. Karissa Bowley also asks this Court to remove Bul Harang Mabil as the Plaintiff

and to name her as the Plaintiff. As the surviving spouse of Dau Harang Mabil, Karissa

Bowley could have opposed Bul Harang Mabil’s request for an independent autopsy.

Campaign for Southern Equal. v. Bryant, 64 F. Supp. 3d 906 (S.D. Miss. Nov. 25, 2014),

(stating that Miss. Code Ann. § 41-37-25 provides “that surviving spouses are among the

individuals authorized to consent to the performance of an autopsy).” Consequently, it

was proper for Bul Harang Mabil to name Karissa Bowley as a defendant in this action.

Since Karissa Bowley failed to lodge an objection, embraced this Court’s Order and

elected to permit an independent autopsy, this Court should deny her request to remove

Bul Harang Mabil as a Plaintiff and/or to name her as a Plaintiff in his stead.

WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, for the reasons stated above, Bul

Harang Mabil prays that this Court will enter an Order denying Karissa Bowley’s Motion

to Clarify, Motion to Realign the Parties, and/or Motion to Modify the Injunction.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, this is the 22nd day of April 2024.

//s// Lisa M. Ross

Lisa M. Ross (MSB#9755)
Post Office Box 11264
Jackson, MS 39283-1264
(Telephone) 601-981-7900
lross@[Link]

6
Case: 25CH1:24-cv-00429 Document #: 15 Filed: 04/22/2024 Page 7 of 7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Lisa M. Ross, undersigned counsel for Plaintiff do hereby certify that I have

this day electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the system

MEC, which sent notification of such filing to all counsel of record.

This is the 22nd day of April 2024.

/s/ Lisa M. Ross

Lisa M. Ross

7
 Case: 25CH1:24-cv-00429 Document #: 14 Filed: 04/22/2024 Page 1 of 12

IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

OF HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPI

BUL GARANG MABIL PLAINTIFF

vs. CAUSE NO. G-2024-429

KARISSA BOWLEY,
MISSISSIPPI CAPITOL POLICE,
MISSISSIPPI STATE CRIME LAB,
JOHN DOE PERSON(S) 1-5, AND
JOHN DOE ENTITY(IES) 1-5 DEFENDANTS

FIRST AMENDED ANSWER OF KARISSA BOWLEY

COMES NOW Karissa Bowley, widow and next-of-kin of Dau Mabil, and files her

Amended Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint for Emergency Temporary Restraining Order and

Preliminary Injunction.

SUMMARY

Karissa embraces the Court’s granted relief of a third-party autopsy, which should proceed

after all law enforcement entities known to need access to Dau’s remains to complete their

investigations no longer require such access—after which time a pathologist who is at least as

qualified as those conducting autopsies for the State of Mississippi should complete it within a

month.

Karissa does now and would previously have authorized this had the Plaintiff asked her.

As for the Court’s Order that the state conduct an autopsy, it was already being conducted during

the Court’s no-notice hearing. While that hearing was taking place, Karissa continued efforts to

search for her husband, prayerfully believing he was alive, until Capitol Police arrived at the

couple’s home at approximately 11:45 a.m. on April 18, 2024, and told Karissa the autopsy results.

1
 Case: 25CH1:24-cv-00429 Document #: 14 Filed: 04/22/2024 Page 2 of 12

Unfortunately, this Court’s Order regarding her husband’s remains issued before Karissa

even learned that Dau was dead.

Because Karissa and the Plaintiff’s interests appear to be aligned regarding the absolute

need to ensure the integrity of any investigations involving her husband, there is no adversity

between them, no legal harm, and no case or controversy. Dau’s remains were never at risk of

compromise in the way the Complaint and Order describes. Karissa is Dau’s next-of-kin and has

sole legal responsibility for the final disposition of his remains. But she believed him alive when

this case was filed and when the Order issued, and there was no imminent risk of, nor any plan for,

the destruction of his remains. Though Karissa has every right under Mississippi law to bury or

cremate her husband’s body, no such risk or plan exists presently, or when the Court issued its

Order.1

When this Complaint was filed, Karissa was still working long days and nights publicizing

and coordinating search efforts with the couple’s extensive and beloved circle of family and friends

in Belhaven and Jackson. These collective efforts, led locally by Karissa, included:

• Splitting the city into quadrants and mapping, canvassing, and soliciting security and
doorbell camera footage from dozens of routes near where Dau disappeared;
• Arranging a water search of the Pearl River, which required federal permission for boat
launch access, and included volunteers from regional search-and-rescue organizations;
• Launching a multi-platform media campaign using social media, paper posters, and
large stickers for vehicles;
• Placing a full-sized roadside billboard along a major street;
• Coordinating with the Department of Public Safety to create and publicize a Crime
Stoppers listing, including a posted reward for information;
• Distributing flyers to healthcare providers at the regional trauma center, and regularly
contacting local hospitals and shelters;
• Maintaining an updated fact sheet for distribution that listed Karissa’s personal contact
information, as well as contact information for the Capitol Police and Jackson Police,
which was published on paper and through social media, including versions translated
into Spanish;

2
 Case: 25CH1:24-cv-00429 Document #: 14 Filed: 04/22/2024 Page 3 of 12

• Holding several awareness-raising events near the location where Dau was last seen
and coordinating press attendance to maximize visibility;
• Coordaining a campaign to contact state and federal representatives for assistance;
• Holding multiple demonstrations and vigils with community members, one of which
the Plaintiff attended, at which Karissa held and publicized her husband’s picture;
• Contacting and evaluating regional nonprofit search and rescue organizations for
potential involvement and;
• Hiring and managing a private investigator.

When this Complaint was filed and the Order issued, Karissa believed her husband to be

alive, and would not have allowed destruction of his remains. At that time, the state’s autopsy was

already underway. Therefore, the unnecessary Order was issued in reliance on misinformation, it

was contrary to Mississippi law requiring the surviving spouse authorize any third-party autopsy,

and it was issued on knowingly false information if Plaintiff’s counsel represented to the Court

that Karissa or any state defendant received notice of the hearing, as we understand to be the case.

Plaintiff’s attorney has widely published statements about Karissa that sound in tort, but

Rule 11 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure upholds public trust in legal proceedings by

providing for sanctions against attorneys who mislead judges. Mississippi law bars the Plaintiff

from authorizing an autopsy on Dau’s body.2 Karissa is the only person capable of authorizing a

third-party autopsy on Dau’s remains. To make the Order a legal one, Karissa must be made the

Plaintiff and the Order must incorporate the previously-stated safeguards against destruction of

evidence needed for ongoing local, state, or federal law enforcement investigations. [Dkt. #11].

2
Miss. Code. Ann. § 41-37-25. It would be unlawful for the Plaintiff to authorize an autopsy on Dau’s body. The only
circumstances in which a sibling has a legal right to authorize a third-party autopsy is when all the following persons
are absent: (1) surviving spouse; (2) parent; (3) person in loco parentis; (4) descendant over the age of 18 (5) guardian;
and (6) next of kin. In the absence of all such persons, “any other person charged by law with responsibility for burial”
may authorize an autopsy. Siblings may fall into the latter category, but siblings are not named in the statute. Because
this Court issued an Order that requires Bul Mabil and defendants to violate Miss. Code. Ann. § 41-37-25, the Order
is in clear error.

3
 Case: 25CH1:24-cv-00429 Document #: 14 Filed: 04/22/2024 Page 4 of 12

In summary, while not needed or supported by a legally cognizable claim, Karissa

embraces a third-party autopsy. For it to be legal, only she can authorize it. As Dau’s widow,

pursuant to her § 41-61-65 authority, Karissa requires that it proceed in a manner, previously

described, to ensure that it does not destroy evidence that local, state, or federal law enforcement

agencies need to conduct their ongoing investigations, which is a condition precedent to her

consent.

ANSWERS TO ALLEGATIONS

1. Karissa admits that Bul Mabil is an adult resident of Texas. Karissa lacks information

to either admit or deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 1.

2. Karissa admits that her and her husband Dau’s home address is as provided. Karissa

expressly denies that she received any notice of the hearing on this matter, which was

conducted at 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, April 18, 2024. Upon information and belief, no

one from the state, including the Mississippi State Crime Lab or Capitol Police, had

notice of this hearing, either. If Plaintiff’s counsel represented to the Court that Karissa

or any named defendants were given notice of the hearing, as we understand to be the

case, that representation was false. Rule 11 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure

and the Litigation Accountability Act uphold public trust in legal proceedings by

providing for sanctions against attorneys who mislead judges.3 Karissa has not been

3
See generally, e.g., In re: Estate of Ladner, 909 So. 2d 1051, 1056 (9117) (Miss. 2004) (finding that a
misrepresentation of relevant facts to a chancellor, who entered an order based on the misrepresentations, was a
violation of the Litigation Accountability Act and Rule 11 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure and warranted
sanctions); Cooper v. Estate of Gatwood, 119 So. 3d 1031, 1036-37 (Miss. 2013) (upholding a circuit court’s finding
that the Litigation and Accountability Act had been violated and award of Rule 11 sanctions against an attorney who
actively misrepresented the conditions within a divorce decree in order to obtain a writ of garnishment); In re Estate
of Pannagl, 166 So. 3d 39, 43 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (finding that a chancellor abused her discretion in denying a
request for sanctions under Rule 11 and the Litigation Accountability Act when a litigant made a misrepresentation to
the court by failing to disclose the existence of a document fatal to his attempt to probate a will); In re Necaise, 126
So. 3d 49, 57-58 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (upholding a chancery court’s order for sanctions against an attorney under

4
 Case: 25CH1:24-cv-00429 Document #: 14 Filed: 04/22/2024 Page 5 of 12

provided with any certified writing from Plaintiff’s attorney regarding any alleged

effort made to give her notice of the hearing, as is required by Miss. R. Civ. P. 65(b) to

enter any order against her without notice. Except as expressly admitted, paragraph 2

is denied.

3. Karissa affirmatively states that Capitol Police did not inform Karissa that the remains

found in the Pearl River were her husband’s until after this Court issued its Order,

which was a day after Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed. Upon information and belief, no

one from the state, including the Mississippi State Crime Lab or Capitol Police, had

notice of this hearing, either. Karissa lacks information to either admit or deny the

remaining allegations of paragraph 3 and, therefore, denies same and demands strict

proof thereof.

4. Karissa was told by Capitol Police that the Mississippi State Crime Lab would be

conducting its autopsy of the remains found in the Pearl River on the morning of April

18, 2024. The Court held the hearing on this matter during that time. Karissa lacks

information to either admit or deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 4 and,

therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof.

5. The Complaint contains no allegations of negligence against any party, so Karissa is

unsure of what Plaintiff means by “the negligence alleged herein.” To the extent that a

response is required of Karissa, paragraph 5 is denied.

Rule 11 and the Litigation Accountability Act where the attorney made frivolous arguments against a will and
misrepresented pertinent facts to the court).

5
Case: 25CH1:24-cv-00429 Document #: 14 Filed: 04/22/2024 Page 6 of 12

6. The Complaint contains no allegations of negligence against any party, so Karissa is

unsure of what Plaintiff means by “the negligence alleged herein.” To the extent that a

response is required of Karissa, paragraph 6 is denied.

7. Paragraph 7 is denied. Responding further, Karissa denies that Plaintiff is Dau’s next-

of-kin or otherwise has standing to seek the relief requested by him. Under Mississippi

law, the surviving spouse is the next-of-kin with all rights and obligations thereto, and

a surviving spouse must authorize any third-party autopsy.

8. Karissa admits that her husband went missing on March 25, 2024. Since that day,

Karissa has fought tirelessly to find Dau, to publicize his disappearance in the local

community, to organize her and Dau’s many loved ones to spread the message and help

find her husband, and to pressure the police to help her find him—including

coordinating media events, organizing actions outside the Capitol Police office in

Jackson, and soliciting business and neighbors for doorbell and security camera

footage. Her community created and followed dozens of maps and digital tools to track

their ongoing search efforts. Karissa organized these efforts locally. Karissa admits that

the Plaintiff is one of her deceased husband’s siblings who lives in Texas. Except as

expressly admitted, paragraph 8 is denied. Karissa hereby incorporates all information

about search efforts that Karissa has led which are contained in this Answer’s

“Summary” section.

9. Karissa admits that her husband, Plaintiff’s brother, is deceased. Before mid-day on

April 18, 2024—which was after the filing of this Complaint and the issuance of the

Court’s Order—Karissa could not have confirmed or denied if her husband was

deceased. She was still organizing search efforts for him; their dear friend had recently

6
Case: 25CH1:24-cv-00429 Document #: 14 Filed: 04/22/2024 Page 7 of 12

put Dau on a billboard. As Dau’s next-of-kin, Capitol Police confirmed she would be

the first to learn of any investigation results. The police told Karissa that the autopsy

was to be conducted the morning of Thursday, April 18, 2024. Karissa did not know

this Court’s hearing was taking place during that time. At or around 11:45 a.m., after

the Order had already issued, police arrived at Karissa and Dau’s home and informed

her, as next-of-kin, of the results of that autopsy. This was the first time that Karissa

first learned that her husband, and best friend, was no longer alive. Then she began

making calls to family and friends to share the terrible news. Karissa has done

everything in her power to persuade local, state, and national law enforcement entities

to act and keep her informed, including by demonstrating and organizing rolling vigil

shifts outside of the Capitol Police office in Jackson to pressure police to do more to

find her husband. Except as expressly admitted, Paragraph 9 is denied.

10. Believing her husband to be alive, Karissa had no plans regarding Dau’s remains.

Karissa is unsure of the source or basis of Plaintiff’s statement that Dau “had been

determined to be deceased [as of Wednesday, April 17, 2024].” Karissa was unaware

that any determination may have been made, including when the Complaint was served

on her at her and Dau’s home at or about 5:00 p.m. (which lacked the required notice

of the hearing which was held at 9:00 a.m. the following day). Before Karissa was

informed by Capitol Police that her husband was deceased, Karissa read, but did not

believe, that allegation in Plaintiff’s Complaint and in a subsequent news article

reporting that this Court had issued its Order after a hearing she knew nothing about.

Responding further, Karissa affirmatively states that she only has access to legally

sanctioned sources of information about the ongoing law enforcement investigation

7
 Case: 25CH1:24-cv-00429 Document #: 14 Filed: 04/22/2024 Page 8 of 12

into her husband’s death. Karissa is unsure of the identity of any investigators or law

enforcement officers who did not share evidence with her, as Dau’s legal next-of-kin,

but who did, or reportedly did, share confidential law enforcement investigation results

with Plaintiff’s counsel or others.

Karissa can find no specific facts listed in the Complaint that would tend to show

that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage would result to Plaintiff prior to

the relief requested by Plaintiff being ordered against her, much less specific facts that

“clearly” show this likelihood, as required by Miss. R. Civ. P. 65(b) (for an order to

issue from a no-notice hearing). Except as expressly admitted, paragraph 10 is denied.

11. Denied.

12. Because Mississippi law makes Karissa Dau’s next-of-kin, the Plaintiff cannot legally

represent Dau or his family, though he is Dau’s brother and Dau’s family. Except as

expressly admitted, paragraph 12 is denied.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Without assuming the burden of proof or persuasion where it otherwise rests with

Plaintiff, Karissa pleads the following affirmative defenses:

FIRST

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, in whole or

in part, or otherwise lacks merit. Karissa moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) unless and until

Karissa is made the plaintiff.

SECOND

Karissa should be realigned as a plaintiff. Dau’s family should be permitted to conduct an

third-party autopsy. Karissa is Dau’s widow and next-of-kin.

8
 Case: 25CH1:24-cv-00429 Document #: 14 Filed: 04/22/2024 Page 9 of 12

THIRD

Karissa and Plaintiff’s interests appear to be aligned regarding the necessity of ensuring

the integrity of any investigations involving the death of Karissa’s husband. Under Miss. Code.

Ann. § 41-37-25, Karissa has elected to permit an additional autopsy, subject to certain parameters

to ensure no evidence is compromised or destroyed by it which law enforcement entities need to

conduct their investigations. For example, the additional autopsy that the Plaintiff requests may

only be conducted by a pathologist who is at least as qualified as is generally required of

pathologists conducting autopsies for the State of Mississippi; he or she must, for example, be (1)

“an M.D. or D.O. who is certified in anatomic pathology by the American Board of Pathology,”

and (2) “a competent pathologist who is designated by the State Medical Examiner or the

Department of Public Safety as a pathologist qualified to perform postmortem examinations

and autopsies.”4

FOURTH

Plaintiff is not the surviving spouse nor next-of-kin. Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this

suit.

FIFTH

This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. There is no case or controversy; also, the

Plaintiff lacks standing.

SIXTH

Karissa lacked legal and actual notice of the hearing conducted on Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Plaintiff did not serve or improperly served notice and/or process.

4
Miss. Code. Ann. § 41-61-65 (providing statutory eligibility requirements for pathologists conducting autopsies for
the State Medical Examiner).

9
 Case: 25CH1:24-cv-00429 Document #: 14 Filed: 04/22/2024 Page 10 of 12

SEVENTH

Karissa pleads all affirmative defenses available, and Plaintiff’s claims are moot.

EIGHTH

To the extent any allegations of the Complaint are neither specifically admitted nor denied,

nor a claim of insufficient information or knowledge made, Karissa denies them and demands

strict proof thereof.

NINETH

Some or all of Plaintiff’s claims are barred because they relate to the conduct of

third parties for whom Karissa is not responsible, and over which she has no control.

RESERVATION OF RIGHTS TO REGARDING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Karissa lacks much of the information and evidence possessed by investigators and law

enforcement officers, including any video(s), photograph(s), or other evidence apparently shared

with Plaintiff and his attorneys, but not with Karissa, Dau’s surviving spouse and next-of-kin. This

is what is known to her from this week: First, a body was found in Lawrence County, Mississippi,

over the weekend that could have been Dau’s. Karissa was prayerful that it would not be. The State

Crime Lab was to conduct an autopsy to get the results to Karissa, Dau’s wife and next-of-kin.

Karissa remained hopeful and continued organizing search efforts.

Then, someone came to Karissa and Dau’s home in Jackson at 5:00 p.m. Wednesday, April

17, 2024, and served her the Complaint in this case that had been filed that day. The process did

not contain any notice of an emergency hearing planned by the Plaintiff. Karissa never received

any notice that an emergency hearing was to be held the very next morning.

At 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, April 18, 2024, the no-notice hearing was held at the same time

an autopsy was being conducted/concluded by the State Crime Lab on the body found in Lawrence

10
 Case: 25CH1:24-cv-00429 Document #: 14 Filed: 04/22/2024 Page 11 of 12

County. Karissa learned from police after this Court’s order issued that her husband, and best

friend, was dead. She first learned about the hearing and the Order from a news report. It appears

media outlets, but not any of the defendants, received notice of the hearing.

Karissa reserves the right to amend or supplement this First Amended Answer with

additional affirmative defenses when and if such information is ascertained through discovery or

other means during this case

Dated: April 22, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Paloma Wu

P.O. Box 1162

Jackson, MS 39215
Miss. Bar No. 105464
601-533-8114
[Link]@[Link]

Counsel for Karissa Bowley

11
Case: 25CH1:24-cv-00429 Document #: 14 Filed: 04/22/2024 Page 12 of 12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that true and correct copies of the foregoing were filed on the MEC

system on this 22nd day of April, 2024, which electronically served copies on all counsel of

record in this litigation.

Paloma Wu
Counsel for Karissa Bowley

12
 Case: 25CH1:24-cv-00429 Document #: 11 Filed: 04/18/2024 Page 1 of 4

IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

OF HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPI

BUL GARANG MABIL PLAINTIFF

vs. CAUSE NO. G-2024-429

KARISSA BOWLEY,
MISSISSIPPI CAPITOL POLICE,
MISSISSIPPI STATE CRIME LAB,
JOHN DOE PERSON(S) 1-5, AND
JOHN DOE ENTITY(IES) 1-5 DEFENDANTS

MOTION TO CLARIFY, MOTION TO REALIGN THE PARTIES, AND/OR MOTION

TO MODIFY THE INJUNCTION AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Mrs. Karissa Bowley, wife and next-of-kin of Dau Mabil, hereby submits this Motion for

Clarification, Motion to Realign the Parties in this case, and/or Motion to Modify the Injunction.

Karissa’s husband, Dau, went missing on March 25, 2024. Since that day, Karissa has

fought tirelessly to find him; to organize her and Dau’s many loved ones in the local community

to help find him; and to pressure the police to help her find him—including by organizing

neighborhood canvassing; camera footage-gathering; and actions at the Capitol Police offices.

Karissa was served a copy of the Complaint at 5:00 p.m. yesterday at her and Dau’s home.

She never received notice of this morning’s 9:00 a.m. hearing. She would have attended had she

known. She would have testified that she embraces the Court’s granted relief to the extent

described below; she would have granted the Plaintiff’s request had he asked.1

1
See Miss. Code. Ann. § 41-37-25 (“No [independent] autopsy shall be held over the objection of the surviving
spouse, or if there be no surviving spouse, of any surviving parent, or if there be neither a surviving spouse nor
parent, then of any surviving child.”) (emphasis added); see also, e.g., Miss. Code. Ann. § 41-43-59 (defining which
“next of kin” are authorized to disenter buried remains as the following persons in the priority listed […]: (a) The
decedent’s spouse, if the spouse has not remarried. (b) The decedent’s children. (c) The decedent’s parents. (d) The
decedent’s siblings.”) (emphasis added). Additionally, the state’s autopsy report will go to one adult member of
Dau’s family, see Miss. Code. Ann. § 41-61-65; the Capitol Police have advised Karissa that, as Dau’s next of kin,
the report shall go to her.

1
 Case: 25CH1:24-cv-00429 Document #: 11 Filed: 04/18/2024 Page 2 of 4

As Dau’s surviving spouse, Karissa has the statutory authority to determine the

appropriateness of any independent autopsy.2 She therefore writes to clarify and/or respectfully

request that the Court modify its injunction to accommodate her exercise of this authority as

follows:

1. The additional autopsy that the Plaintiff requests may only occur after all law enforcement
entities which are or which will be, in the future, investigating Dau’s death have completed
all aspects of their investigation which may require access to Dau’s remains;

2. The additional autopsy that the Plaintiff requests may only be conducted by a pathologist
who is at least as qualified as is generally required of pathologists conducting autopsies
for the State of Mississippi; specifically, he or she must be (1) “an M.D. or D.O. who is
certified in anatomic pathology by the American Board of Pathology,” and (2) “a
competent pathologist who is designated by the State Medical Examiner or the Department
of Public Safety as a pathologist qualified to perform postmortem examinations
and autopsies”;3 and

3. The additional autopsy that the Plaintiff requests must be completed within one month after
the last law enforcement entity investigating Dau’s death has completed its investigation.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Motion is to inform the Court that

Karissa did not receive notice of the hearing this morning and that there is no adversity of interest.

She embraces the Court’s ordered relief with the modification requested above. Because there is

no case or controversy between Karissa—who is Dau’s legal next-of-kin—and the Plaintiff, the

Plaintiff lacks standing to sue Karissa. However, this standing issue can be remedied if the Court

grants Karissa’s alternative Motion to Realign the Parties to make Karissa a co-Plaintiff.

To the extent it would be helpful for the Court to consider this Motion at a hearing, she

respectfully requests one.

2
Miss. Code. Ann. § 41-37-25.
3
Miss. Code. Ann. § 41-61-65 (providing statutory eligibility requirements for pathologists conducting autopsies for
the State Medical Examiner).

2
 Case: 25CH1:24-cv-00429 Document #: 11 Filed: 04/18/2024 Page 3 of 4

In further support of this motion, Karissa submits the following:

Exhibit A: Dau and Karissa’s Marriage Certificate (Hinds County, Mississippi)

Dated: April 18, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Paloma Wu

P.O. Box 1162

Jackson, MS 39215
Miss. Bar. No. 105464
[Link]@[Link]

Counsel for Karissa Bowley, Defendant

3
 Case: 25CH1:24-cv-00429 Document #: 11 Filed: 04/18/2024 Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that true and correct copies of the foregoing were filed on the MEC

system on this 18th day of April, 2024, which electronically served copies on all counsel of

record in this litigation.

Paloma Wu
Counsel for Defendant Karissa Bowley

4
 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 [Link],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 [Link] 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 [Link]:
______v
(Arr.^.
,

[Link] 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
Case: 25CH1:24-cv-00429 Document #: 2 Filed: 04/17/2024 Page 1 of 3
Case: 25CH1:24-cv-00429 Document #: 2 Filed: 04/17/2024 Page 2 of 3
Case: 25CH1:24-cv-00429 Document #: 2 Filed: 04/17/2024 Page 3 of 3