Citizens Dismiss Petition Against Jimmy Dunn
Submitted by Jacqueline Binns
October 20, 2026, 5:07 a.m.
SEVIERVILLE, TN - Tennessee citizens who recently sought the suspension and removal of Fourth Judicial District Attorney General James “Jimmy” Bruce Dunn have voluntarily dismissed their civil ouster lawsuit on October 19 following Dunn’s legal challenge to whether Tennessee's General Ouster Act applies to him as an elected district attorney general.
Dunn, who has served as the elected District Attorney General since 2006, was charged August 26 by a Grand Jury Presentment with six felony offenses arising from allegations concerning the arrest and detention of Erik Cooper. Dunn pleaded not guilty at his October 1 arraignment.
The action, State of Tennessee ex rel. Erik Cooper, et al. v. James B. Dunn, was filed in Sevier County Circuit Court on September 18. The relators, represented by attorney Aaron M. Kimsey, sought Dunn's suspension and removal based on allegations of official misconduct, misuse of governmental resources, interference with grand-jury proceedings, and violations of criminal statutes. The petition was supported by affidavits and declarations of citizens within Dunn’s district and former employees of the District Attorney General’s Office for the Fourth Judicial District of Tennessee.
Dunn's Response to the Ouster Allegations
Dunn’s response generally denied all allegations or stated that he lacked sufficient knowledge to admit or deny certain allegations. Rather than provide detailed factual explanations addressing the individual incidents, Dunn principally argued that Tennessee law does not permit a civil ouster action against him as an elected District Attorney General.
The First Amended Complaint included the following allegations supported by testimony sworn under oath:
Use of state investigators for a private collection matter. Former district attorney investigator Tracy Ivy alleged that Dunn directed armed state investigators to recover a furniture deposit for a private individual personally associated with Dunn. The Complaint characterized the assignment as an unauthorized use of armed governmental personnel. Dunn denied the allegation.
Surveillance of a Victim-Witness Coordinator. Ivy separately alleged under oath that Dunn directed him to follow and photograph Victim-Witness Coordinator Stephanie Johnson in approximately 2018 or 2019. Dunn denied the allegation.
Surveillance of an Assistant District Attorney. Ivy separately alleged that Dunn directed him in 2024 to follow Assistant District Attorney Joanne Sheldon while she performed her duties, including observing her activities at public places and the courthouse. Dunn denied the allegation.
Interference with citizen access to Grand Juries. The relators alleged that Dunn's office imposed an unlawful written application, submission deadline, scheduling, and employed investigative procedures on citizens seeking to present allegations of criminal conduct to Grand Jurors. Cooper's declaration described years of litigation challenging those practices. In July 2023, the Sevier County Circuit Court ruled that Dunn’s requirements imposed on citizens seeking access to the Grand Jury were unlawful practices. The Tennessee Court of Appeals subsequently recognized the continuing validity of the trial court’s ruling. Following the ruling of the Court of Appeals, Cooper appeared again before an August 24 Sevier County Grand Jury. The Grand Jury returned its Presentment against Dunn and assistant district attorney general William Brownlow Marsh. Dunn denied the allegations.
Threats against citizen Grand Jury presenters and witnesses. Like Cooper, relator Kim Pierce alleged misconduct involving threats made by Dunn during Pierce’s Grand Jury appearances. Pierce submitted a sworn declaration alleging that Dunn personally warned her she could be criminally charged and jailed for lying about public officials during a Grand Jury appearance. Pierce also described Dunn questioning her motives for requesting an investigation, conduct not permitted by the prosecutor during Grand Jury proceedings. Dunn denied the allegations.
Confidential juvenile record disclosure. Former Fourth Judicial District Public Defender Edward Miller alleged that, after he raised concerns about disclosure of confidential juvenile information, an agreement was offered concerning his client's criminal case with an implicit understanding that Miller would not pursue the disclosure issue. Dunn denied the allegation.
Alleged failure to prosecute a disputed vehicle title matter. Miller also described a motorhome transaction involving an allegedly improper title and an investigation by the Tennessee Department of Revenue. The Complaint alleged that Dunn declined prosecution despite information suggesting the title had been issued through fraud or mistake. Dunn responded that he lacked sufficient knowledge to admit or deny this allegation.
Criminal allegations concerning Cooper's arrest. The Complaint incorporated the August 26 Grand Jury Presentment, which charges Dunn with official misconduct, official oppression, retaliation for past action, conspiracy to commit official oppression, coercion of a witness, and civil rights intimidation. Dunn acknowledged that the Presentment and Cooper's declaration were attached to the Complaint, but denied that the allegations established grounds for suspension or removal.
None of these allegations was adjudicated in the ouster proceeding, and the voluntary dismissal will not constitute a judicial determination of their truth or falsity. The citizens will proceed to the Tennessee General Assembly, the only government agency empowered by the Constitution to oust a District Attorney General for conduct Dunn is alleged to have committed while in office.
Tennessee Supreme Court Warned of the Extraordinary Power of District Attorneys
Nearly five decades ago, Tennessee Supreme Court Chief Justice William F. Henry described the extraordinary authority entrusted to the state's elected District Attorneys General:
“He or she is answerable to no superior and has virtually unbridled discretion in determining whether to prosecute and for what offense. ... In a very real sense this is the most powerful office in Tennessee today. Its responsibilities are awesome; the potential for abuse is frightening.” Pace v. State, 566 S.W.2d 861, 866–67 (Tenn. 1978) (Henry, C.J., concurring); quoted in Dearborne v. State, 575 S.W.2d 259, 262 (Tenn. 1978).
The Tennessee Supreme Court subsequently reaffirmed the breadth of prosecutorial discretion in State v. Superior Oil, Inc., 875 S.W.2d 658 (Tenn. 1994), and Ramsey v. Town of Oliver Springs, 998 S.W.2d 207 (Tenn. 1999), while recognizing that such discretion remains subject to constitutional limitations.
“An elected District Attorney General who announced his resignation four years before the end of his eight-year term, then attempted to rescind his early retirement after being criminally charged by a Grand Jury, continues to exercise prosecutorial authority over four Tennessee counties,” Cooper said. “Mr. Dunn faces six criminal felony charges and is presumed innocent unless proven guilty. But the question of whether Dunn should continue exercising the extraordinary power of his office while facing criminal prosecution deserves serious consideration by legislators empowered by our Constitution to act. Think of this: Dunn himself is a criminal defendant prosecuting criminal cases. That’s a very disturbing thought.”
Separate Appellate Challenge Remains Active
A separate appeal pursued by the Fourth Judicial District Public Defender's Office, led by Rebecca Lee, remains pending before the Tennessee Court of Appeals. That proceeding challenges Dunn's continued authority following his previously announced retirement and subsequent attempted rescission. In September, Circuit Court Judge Jim Gass, joined by all judges of the Fourth Judicial Circuit and General Sessions courts, denied Lee’s motion to disqualify Dunn from prosecuting criminal cases.
The appellate litigation concerns a separate legal issue from the misconduct allegations raised in the ouster action, and a separate legal issue from Dunn’s criminal prosecution following his indictment.
ennessee Supreme Court Decision Shifts Citizens’ Battle to Remove Indicted District Attorney General Jimmy Dunn from the Courthouse to the State Capitol
The citizen relators' decision to voluntarily dismiss their civil ouster action follows a constitutional challenge Dunn raised principally on the Tennessee Supreme Court's decision in Ramsey v. Board of Professional Responsibility.
In Ramsey, the Tennessee Supreme Court considered whether an elected District Attorney General could be subjected to professional discipline notwithstanding constitutional provisions governing removal from public office. The Court expressly agreed that impeachment was the exclusive method of removing judges and district attorneys from office, while holding that elected prosecutors remained subject to attorney disciplinary proceedings.
Under Article VI, Section 6 of the Tennessee Constitution, removal through the legislative process requires a concurrent vote of two-thirds of the members of each house of the Tennessee General Assembly, voting separately. Tennessee's General Ouster Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-47-101, expressly excludes public officials whom the Constitution makes removable exclusively through other methods. Dunn's attorneys argued that these authorities prohibit citizens from obtaining his suspension or removal through a statutory civil ouster proceeding.
Although the facts and legal issues in Ramsey differ from those presented in Dunn's ouster action, the relators elected to discontinue the civil proceeding in recognition of the substantial constitutional limitations governing the removal of an elected District Attorney General. Their decision does not withdraw the serious allegations or constitute a judicial determination of their merits.
The relators will now direct their efforts to the Tennessee General Assembly, contacting members of the House of Representatives and Senate to request consideration of Dunn's continued service as the Fourth Judicial District's elected chief prosecutor. The dismissal does not withdraw the allegations, constitute an exoneration of Dunn, or affect the separate criminal prosecution in which he faces six charges and remains presumed innocent.
“Citizens of Cocke, Grainger, Jefferson, and Sevier Counties deserve confidence that the extraordinary authority entrusted to their District Attorney General is exercised lawfully, independently, and with accountability,” Cooper said. “The dismissal of this civil action does not resolve the allegations or answer the questions surrounding Mr. Dunn's continued service. Mr. Dunn’s integrity has been questioned, his conduct charged criminally, and his abuse of office claimed in a number of sworn statements. Those questions belong before our elected representatives empowered by Tennessee's Constitution to act. Our community deserves answers. We're not done yet.”
Case: State of Tennessee, upon relation of Erik Cooper, et al. v. James B. Dunn, Case No. 2026-CV-596-I. Appointment of a presiding judge is currently pending before the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
Documents Referenced:Citizen Relators’ First Amended Complaint for Order of Suspension from Office and Writ of Ouster; Ramsey v. Board of Professional Responsibility, Tennessee Supreme Court, 771 S.W.2d 116 (Tenn. 1989).
Documents Available Here: https://tinyurl.com/4f6txt6r
