Lawsuit challenges Miss. city’s ban on pit bulls

RICHLAND — A pet owner has filed a federal lawsuit challenging a central Mississippi city’s ban on pit bull dogs.

The city of Richland, a Jackson suburb of about 7,000 residents, passed an ordinance in April 2006 that bans American Pit Bull Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers and mixed-breed offspring of those animals.

Arthur Young, 21, said in a recent interview that he was walking his pit bull, Apollo, last year when someone called the police. A Richland animal control officer later contacted Young’s family and said the dog would be seized and possibly put down if he didn’t get it out of the city, Young said.

Young, a student enrolled at Jackson State University, said he moved the dog to an animal shelter in Madison. He took a job there to offset the cost of boarding Apollo and so he could see the dog more often.

Young said his dog has never shown any aggressive behavior.

“The argument they are making is that pit bulls are aggressive. There’s no scientific evidence of that,” Young said.

Richland Mayor Mark Scarborough says that isn’t true.

“That’s not the argument we’re making. It’s not that they attack more than any other breed, it’s that when they attack, it’s the results of the attack.” Scarborough said. “If my lab bites you, he’s going to bite you, release and back away. Most dogs do. But when that pit bull or that type breed bites, it doesn’t back away, it continues to attack.”

Scarborough said the ordinance was passed after two attacks in the city, one on a police officer and one on a child.

“I understand people’s love for their dogs ... but there’s not a dog in this world that’s worth somebody’s life,” the mayor said.

A 2011 study published in the Annals of Surgery said attacks by “pit bulls are associated with higher morbidity rates, higher hospital charges, and a higher risk of death than are attacks by other breeds of dogs.”

Many communities across the country have passed laws banning or restricting pit bulls, including big cities like Denver and Miami.

William Featherston Jr., the attorney who filed the lawsuit on Young’s behalf, said some legal challenges to such bans have been successful.The lawsuit argues that the ordinance violates animal owners’ 14th Amendment right to due process. Featherston said in a telephone interview that the 14th Amend- ment provides that people have the right to a hearing before the seizure of property.

Scarborough said the ordinance doesn’t violate due process because pet owners can go before the Board of Aldermen to challenge the determination that a dog is a pit bull. He also said the ordinance doesn’t deprive people of their property because they can keep their dogs, just not in the city.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Jackson, seeks a preliminary injunction to prevent the city from seizing Young’s dog, and a declaratory judgment that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague.