) CIVIL ACTION v. ) NO. )

Transcription

1 Case 4:16-cv CDL Document 1-1 Filed 12/01/16 Page 1 of 29 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MUSCOGEE COUNIX STATE OF GEORGIA ) ELIZABETH HARRIS KING, ) KEIONA WRIGHT, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) CIVIL ACTION v. ) NO. ) CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT ) OF COLUMBUS, GEORGIA, ) ) MICHAEL CIELfNSKI, Chief Judge, ) Columbus Recorder s Court, in his ) official and individual capacities, ) ) TERESA TOMLINSON, Mayor, ) Columbus, Georgia, in her official ) capacity, ) ) TERRI EZELL, ) Clerk, Columbus Recorder s Court, ) in her official and individual capacities, ) ) Defendants. ) ) VERIFIED COMPLAINT 4N]) PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS Plaintiffs Elizabeth Harris King and Keiona Wright file this complaint for damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief.

2 Case 4:16-cv CDL Document 1-1 Filed 12/01/16 Page 2 of 29 INTRODUCTION 1. This is a case about the Columbus Recorder s Court, whose judges, officers, and clerks have a policy of reftising to provide public court records to citizens, including criminal defendants, in violation oflaw. This action seeks to remedy the Defendants violations ofthe constitutional and common law right of access to public court records, court rules, and this State s open records laws. 2. Elizabeth King and Keiona Wright are indigent women who recently appeared before the Columbus Recorder s Court. King, who has a serious mental illness, was recently released from the Muscogee County Jail after being sentenced to 120 days of incarceration for taking food from a Piggly Wiggly grocery store. Wright is a single mother of five children, including nine-month-old twins, who was sentenced to 140 days in jail following a probation revocation hearing relating to her inability to pay traffic ticket fines. 3. King and Wright expect to show that they were jailed in violation of their constitutional rights, including their rights to counsel, due process, and equal protection of the law. But they cannot access court files that would allow their attorneys to properly investigate their cases or make informed judgments about appropriate courses of action. 4. King and Wright have attempted, through counsel, to obtain records of their cases. Consistent with the Defendants policy, in each instance, the Clerk 2

3 Case 4:16-cv CDL Document 1-1 Filed 12/01/16 Page 3 of 29 ofthe Recorder s Court refused to produce court records. produced a one-page certified disposition in each case. Instead, the Clerk This certified disposition is not part of the court record, but rather is a one-page document created by the Clerk in response to the records request, which purports to summarize the charge and disposition. 5. The Defendants refusal to provide public court records is persistent and longstanding. Pursuant to the City s policy, as effectuated by Defendants Cielinski, Tomlinson, and Ezell, members ofthe public, including defendants who come before the Recorder s Court, are routinely denied access to criminal case files. The files in question include important documents such as (a) records of the initiation of charges against a defendant, (b) the advisement of a defendant s rights, (c) the court s order ofjudgment, (d) the conditions of probation imposed on a defendant, (e) warrants, (f) tolling orders, (g) petitions to revoke probation, (h) revocation orders, and (i) all other parts of the criminal file. None of these records has been provided to Plaintiffs despite repeated requests. 6. The Defendants refusal to comply with public right of access laws and court rules makes it impossible for criminal defendants and their attorneys to determine the status of a given case, the length of a person s jail sentence, the duration of a probation sentence, the conditions of probation, or the amount owed by the defendant. 3

4 Case 4:16-cv CDL Document 1-1 Filed 12/01/16 Page 4 of The Defendants persistent failure to provide court records has long frustrated efforts, by counsel and others, to challenge the litany of constitutional violations that occur daily in the Columbus Recorder s Court. 8. By unduly burdening Plaintiffs access to court records, Defendants violated Plaintiffs rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs seek to enforce their federal rights under 42 U.S.C Plaintiffs seek relief under Georgia s Open Records Act, O.C.G.A et seq., and Georgia common law, for Defendants violations of the state-law right to inspect criminal case files. Plaintiffs also request that this Court issue mandamus absolute pursuant to O.C.G.A against Defendant Ezell requiring her to maintain and make available public court files, as required by law and court rule. 9. Plaintiffs seek damages and declaratory and injunctive relief as set forth herein. 1 See Uniform Municipal Court Rule 6 (stating that {a]ll court records are public and are to be available for inspection in accordance with and as limited by the Georgia Open Records Act, as amended ); see also Uniform Superior Court Rule 21 (stating that [a]ll court records are public and are to be available for public inspection unless public access is limited by law,. 4

5 Case 4:16-cv CDL Document 1-1 Filed 12/01/16 Page 5 of 29 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 10. This is a civil rights action arising under 42 U.S.C and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In addition, Plaintiffs bring state-law claims under Georgia common law and O.C.G.A. ~ and to enforce their right to inspect court records. This Court has jurisdiction under O.C.G.A , O.C.G.A , and the common-law and constitutional right of access to public records. 11. Venue is proper in Muscogee County under O.C.G.A A. Plaintiffs PARTIES 12. Elizabeth King is a 58-year old, indigent, African American woman who resides in Columbus, Georgia. King, who has a serious mental illness, recently served a 120-day sentence in the Muscogee County Jail for taking food from a Piggly Wiggly store. 13. Keiona Wright is a 25-year old, indigent, African American woman who resides in Columbus, Georgia. Until her recent incarceration, Wright worked irregular hours at a factory making near minimum wage. Wright was recently sentenced to 140 days in the Muscogee County Jail in relation to a revocation of her probation for traffic tickets. 5

6 Case 4:16-cv CDL Document 1-1 Filed 12/01/16 Page 6 of 29 B. Defendants 14. Defendant Consolidated Government of Columbus, Georgia ( the City ), is a municipal governmental entity. The City has authority over the City of Columbus as well as Muscogee County, Georgia. The City relies on the Recorder s Court to generate government revenue through the collection of fines and fees imposed in cases involving violations of local ordinances, and state traffic offenses. See Columbus Charter The City s policies, practices, and customs were a moving force in the violations described in this complaint. 15. Defendant Michael Cielinski is the chiefjudge ofthe Columbus Recorder s Court and the final policymaker for the City with respect to the policy challenged in this complaint. Cielinski has authority to direct and control the official actions of City employees involved in the operation of the Recorder s Court. Cielinski caused, authorized, condoned, ratified, approved, participated in, or knowingly acquiesced in the illegal policies and practices described in this complaint. His actions and inactions were deliberately indifferent to the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs. Cielinski is a City employee and was appointed by the City Council. He is sued in his individual capacity and in his official capacity for actions taken in his executive and administrative role. At all times pertinent to this action, he was acting under color of state law. 6

7 Case 4:16-cv CDL Document 1-1 Filed 12/01/16 Page 7 of Defendant Teresa Tomlinson is the Mayor of the City of Columbus and resides in Columbus, Georgia. She, along with Defendant Cielinski, is the final policyrnaker with respect to access to Columbus Recorder s Court records. Defendant Tomlinson has the authority to direct and control the official actions of City employees, including those ofthe Columbus Recorder s Court Clerk. She is sued in her official capacity for injunctive relief only. 17. Defendant Tern Ezell is the Clerk ofthe Recorder s Court and the final City policymaker concerning the maintenance ofrecorder s Court files. Her administrative and executive responsibilities include maintaining Recorder s Court files, recording court proceedings, and directing and supervising clerks on the collection of fines and fees. Ezell caused, authorized, condoned, ratified, approved, participated in, or knowingly acquiesced in the illegal policies and practices described in this complaint. Ezell is a City employee. She is sued in her individual capacity and in her official capacity for actions taken in her executive and administrative role. At all times pertinent to this action, she was acting under color of state law. 7

8 Case 4:16-cv CDL Document 1-1 Filed 12/01/16 Page 8 of 29 STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Columbus Recorder s Court Background 18. The Recorder s Court is established by the City Council of Columbus, Georgia. See Columbus Charter et seq. 19. The Recorder s Court has an extremely large caseload handled by a few judges. The Recorder s Court handles 60,000 to 80,000 cases per year, making it one ofthe busiest courts in Georgia. 20. The Recorder s Court hears traffic, criminal, and city ordinance cases made by the Columbus Police Department, the Georgia State Patrol, and other law enforcement agencies. The Court s responsibility is to set bail, issue warrants, collect fines/bonds, hear and determine if probable cause exists for Superior or State Court offenses, and adjudicate city ordinances and certain state offenses. 21. The Recorder s Court collected $3,711,502 in fines in FY The Recorder s Court collected $3,357,498 in fines in FY Routine traffic offenses comprise a substantial portion of the Recorder s Court docket. 2 Columbus Georgia Consolidated Government, Fiscal Year 2016 Operating Budget, Schedule of Revenues, at 88. 8

9 Case 4:16-cv CDL Document 1-1 Filed 12/01/16 Page 9 of People who can pay their traffic ticket fines often leave court with no probation. However, those who cannot pay the fine on or before the day of court are placed on probation with a private company. The Recorder s Court routinely imposes consecutive probation sentences in traffic cases, such that a person is placed on probation for many years for minor traffic citations arising out of one traffic stop. 24. Due to problems with the sound system, extremely poor acoustics in the courtroom, and the chiefjudge s rapid-fire and sometimes unintelligible speech, it is often impossible for people charged with crimes to hear their names called, or even to hear the judge in their individual case. After court, those who fail to hear their names called are informed by court staff that they must either pay a fine for their alleged failure to appear that day or go to jail. 25. Due to the courtroom s poor acoustics, the court s practice of conducting extremely abbreviated hearings, and the failure to provide criminal dispositions and other commonly used court forms, defendants sentenced by the Recorder s Court generally lack an understanding ofwhat occurred in their court proceedings and what their rights and obligations are. 26. The Recorder s Court does not maintain some ofthe records it is required to keep. Instead, in violation ofrule 6 of the Uniform Municipal Court Rules and Section ofthe Columbus Charter, the Recorder s Court permits a 9

10 Case 4:16-cv CDL Document 1-1 Filed 12/01/16 Page 10 of 29 private probation company to keep custody ofmany public records, including final disposition forms, tolling orders, probation revocation requests, and revocation orders. Due, in part, to the Recorder s Court s failure to maintain complete files, members of the public, including criminal defendants with pending cases, do not have access to public court documents. 27. The Recorder s Court regularly employs other policies and practices that violate the law and the rights of indigent citizens. For example: a. The Recorder s Court routinely denies indigent defendants the right to effective assistance of counsel; 3 b. The Recorder s Court routinely accepts pleas of guilty from indigent defendants without giving the constitutionally required advisement of the right to counsel; c. The Recorder s Court routinely fails to abide by O.C.G.A (c) (f); Despite the nearly 60,000 cases that come before the Court each year, the City purports to fulfill its obligation to indigent defendants by contracting with a single attorney. Just one lawyer is available to represent thousands of indigent men and women who appear in the Recorder s Court to face traffic citations, misdemeanors, ordinance violations, probation revocation proceedings, and felony probable cause hearings. The impossibly high caseload shouldered by the Recorder s Court s sole defense attorney renders the provision of counsel essentially meaningless, even to those who, in theory, receive his services. 10

11 Case 4:16-cv CDL Document 1-1 Filed 12/01/16 Page 11 of 29 d. The Recorder s Court routinely issues pay or stay sentences which require indigent defendants either to pay a certain amount ofmoney or go to jail only because they cannot pay; e. The Recorder s Court routinely jails indigent probationers for failure to pay fines and fees without inquiring into their ability to pay or considering alternatives to incarceration, in violation of Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983), and O.C.G.A The Columbus Reorder s Court is a troubled and dysfunctional institution whose judges and clerks routinely disregard the rights of defendants, including indigent citizens. 29. The Defendants policy ofbarring access to Recorder s Court case files acts as a significant barrier to individuals who wish to understand their cases or challenge their treatment in the Recorder s Court. B. Keiona Wright s Experience in the Columbus Recorder s Court 30. Keiona Wright seeks to challenge her recent conviction and probation revocation. She cannot do so without access to court documents. She has been unable to access her public court file due to the Defendants policies. 31. On October 28, 2015, Wright appeared before the Recorder s Court and entered a pro se plea of guilty, in Case No , to: no state tag, child 11

12 Case 4:16-cv CDL Document 1-1 Filed 12/01/16 Page 12 of 29 restraint violation, failure to change address, and no proof of insurance. She was further found guilty of driving with a suspended license. 32. Defendant Cielinski sentenced Wright, an indigent, single mother, to: (a) a fme of $2,079.25, (b) 60 months on reporting probation to be supervised by a private probation company, (c) 60 months of probation supervision fees for the private company, totaling $2,640, and (d) three weekends in jail. 33. At the time of sentencing in Case No , Wright was four months pregnant with twins, was on bed rest, and had been hospitalized for complications with her pregnancy. She had stopped working at a factory where she earned minimum wage because ofher high-risk pregnancy. She had three small children. Wright was not represented by counsel, and no one inquired into Wright s medical, financial, or family circumstances. 4 Wright also had a previous, overlapping probation case from the Recorder s Court (Case No ). In that case, on June 11,2015, Wright entered apro se plea of guilty to no state license and failure to exhibit insurance. Judge Cielinski sentenced her to a fine of $751.63, 12 months on probation, and one weekend in jail. Wright was in regular contact with her probation officer in both cases from June 2015 until June For example, she reported and paid $44 on June 16, 2015; reported on July 14, 2015; called on August 3, 2015 to report she was on bed rest; called on August 20, 2015; called on September 3, 2015 to report she was in the hospital; called on September 14, 2015; provided faxed medical records on September 30, 2015; reported and paid $40 on October 5, 2015; called on November 23, 2015; called on December 3, 2015; called on December 10, 2015; called on February 11, 2016; reported and paid $40 on March 31, 2016; called on April 19, 2016; reported on June ; and reported and paid $40 on June 16,

13 Case 4:16-cv CDL Document 1-1 Filed 12/01/16 Page 13 of Over the following months, Wright paid all she could afford: $80 in two installments. No part of the $80 was allocated to the $2, fine. Instead, $70 was allocated to the private probation company and $10 went to the Georgia Crime Victims Emergency Fund. 35. On July 29, 2016, Wright s probation officer drafted a warrant alleging that Wright failed to report and failed to pay. 36. On October 12, 2016, Wright appeared before Judge Cielinski for a probation revocation hearing. Wright was not advised of her right to request counsel if she could not afford counsel. Instead, she was asked: do you want to speak for yourself or represented [sic] by counsel? Wright, who could not afford to hire counsel, represented herself. 37. At the hearing, Judge Cielinski asked Wright why she had not paid her fine. Wright stated that she had made a few payments. She added that she was a single mother of five children, had little money, and had just had her electricity shut off because she could not afford her light bill. Judge Cielinski told Wright that he did not want to hear about [her] problems and asked again why she had not paid money toward her fine. When Wright protested again that she had made two payments, Cielinski said he was telling her for the third time that those 13

14 Case 4:16-cv CDL Document 1-1 Filed 12/01/16 Page 14 of 29 payments had gone to the probation company, not her fme. 5 Without further questioning, Judge Cielinski sentenced Wright to 140 days in jail, or payment of $2, Only because she did not have $2,079.25, Wright was jailed from October 7, 2016 to October 17, Wright was released after family members sold her car Wright s only method of transportation and means of securing and keeping employment and pooled their own money to pay Wright s fine. 39. On October 13, 2016, undersigned counsel went to the office of the Clerk ofthe Recorder s Court and made an in-person request for all criminal files relating to Keiona Wright. A deputy clerk, following the Defendants official policy, advised that no such records were available, but that the Clerk could only provide certified dispositions, summarizing the cases and costing $5 each. 40. On October 27, 2016, counsel requested by certified mail all records from State v. Keiona Wright in case numbers 2015-CR27945, 2015-CR8847, and 2015-CR Counsel received no response to this letter. ~Wright, like everyone under a misdemeanor probation sentence in Georgia, has no control over how her probation payments are allocated, or whether any portion of a payment is distributed to fines, fees, or surcharges. 6 In this letter, undersigned counsel also requested certain audio files, some of which have since been produced. 14

15 Case 4:16-cv CDL Document 1-1 Filed 12/01/16 Page 15 of The Defendants failed to provide any documents other than certified dispositions. A certified disposition is not part ofthe court record, but rather is a one-page document created by the Clerk in response to a records request, which purports to summarize the charge and disposition. C. Elizabeth King s Experience in the Columbus Recorder s Court 42. Elizabeth King is a 58-year-old African American woman who has schizophrenia. Her sole source ofincome is about $900 per month in social security benefits. 43. King seeks to challenge her recent conviction and probation revocation. She cannot do so without access to court documents. She has been unable to access court documents due to the Defendants policies. 44. King was incarcerated in the Muscogee County Jail from September 5, 2016 to November 4, 2016, in connection with convictions for shoplifting food from a Piggly Wiggly store. 45. On July 21, 2016, King appeared before the Recorder s Court in Case No on a charge of shoplifting. The Court s public defender stood beside King at this proceeding. King had not met the public defender prior to her court appearance and the attorney did not know anything about King or her case when he represented her. 15

16 Case 4:16-cv CDL Document 1-1 Filed 12/01/16 Page 16 of King pleaded nob contendere to theft by shoplifting in Case No No one inquired into King s limited income or mental health. She was sentenced to 30 days of confinement suspended upon payment of $347.50, one weekend of community service, and 12 months of supervised probation at a rate of $50 per month. 47. Thereafter, King reported to probation on August 11, 2016, and paid installment payments of $50 each on July 27 and August 11, On September 5, 2016, King was arrested again for taking food from a Piggly Wiggly store. 49. King appeared before the Recorder s Court on September 6, As per his regular practice, Defendant Cielinski asked King if she wanted to speak for herself or have counsel. Cielinski s question was not sufficient to apprise King that counsel could be appointed if she could not afford a lawyer. King represented herself and pleaded guilty to theft by shoplifting, in Case No Cielinski asked King why she took the food. King answered: to eat. With no further inquiry, Cielinski sentenced King to 120 days in jail. 50. On September 15, 2016, while King was in jail for Case No , King s probation officer mailed to her home address a notice ofprobation violation. The notice stated that King had failed to report on September 9, and instructed her to report in person on September20 with a payment of $

17 Case 4:16-cv CDL Document 1-1 Filed 12/01/16 Page 17 of 29 The notice further ordered: Bring payment in the form of money order only. If you fail to pay on this date without the express approval of your probation officer or case manager, a warrant for your arrest will be issued. King was in jail at the time this notice was delivered to her home. 51. On September 27, 2016, King was brought from the jail where she was serving her sentence in Case No for a probation revocation hearing in Case No At the end of the hearing, the Court found that King violated probation on three grounds: (a) King was arrested on September 5 for shoplifting; (b) King did not complete 16 hours of community service; and (c) King had violated probation by failing to report to probation since August 11, At least two ofthose findings were in error. King s failure to complete 16 hours ofcommunity service barely two months into her year-long sentence did not violate any probation condition. Additionally, King did not violate probation by failing to report since she was in jail at the time of the report dates. Because King was without effective counsel, no one challenged the Court s erroneous findings in this regard. Because King was without counsel, no one informed the court that King had a long history of mental illness and that there were significant questions as to her competence to plead guilty or to have her probation revoked. 17

18 Case 4:16-cv CDL Document 1-1 Filed 12/01/16 Page 18 of The Court sentenced King to 30 days in jail, or payment of $297.50, consecutive to the sentence in Case No On September 14, 2016, undersigned counsel went to the office of the Clerk ofthe Recorder s Court and made an in-person request for all criminal files relating to Elizabeth King. A deputy clerk, following the Defendants official policy, advised that no such records were available, but that the Clerk could only provide certified dispositions summarizing the charges and sentences. 56. On September 27, 2016, counsel sent a letter by certified mail to the Clerk of Court requesting [a]ll court records pertaining to CR and 2016-CR22409,... other than criminal disposition forms, which have already been provided. Counsel also requested audio recordings of the dispositions in these two cases. 57. Undersigned counsel did not receive any response to their request and the Clerk has failed to provide any public court records. D. Recorder s Court s Routine Violations of the Right of Public Access to Court Records 58. The tradition in this country has always been that criminal court records are presumptively open to the public and are sealed from public view only for compelling reasons. 18

19 Case 4:16-cv CDL Document 1-1 Filed 12/01/16 Page 19 of In violation of the First Amendment, the common law, court rules, and the Georgia Open Records Act, the Defendants routinely refuse to provide citizens with access to public court files. 60. Pursuant to the Clerk s policy, as directed and enforced by Defendant Cielinski, members of the public, including defendants who come before the court, are denied access to the entire criminal file, to include: (a) records of the initiation of charges against a defendant, (b) the advisement ofa defendant s rights, (c) the court s order ofjudgment, (d) the conditions ofprobation imposed on a defendant, (e) warrants, (f) tolling orders, (g) petitions to revoke probation, and (h) revocation orders. None of these documents is made available to members of the public, criminal defendants, or defense attorneys. 61. As a matter ofpolicy and practice, when a member of the public requests to view a public court file in the Recorder s Court, the Clerk andlor her agents inform the requestor that the only available document is a certified disposition. 62. Undersigned counsel has requested criminal case files from the Recorder s Court in 17 cases in In none ofthese cases did the Clerk produce even a single document from any individual s criminal case. 63. The Clerk s persistent refusal to comply with court rules and the law frequently makes it impossible for defendants and their attorneys to determine the 19

20 Case 4:16-cv CDL Document 1-1 Filed 12/01/16 Page 20 of 29 status of a given case, the length of a person s jail sentence, the duration of a probation sentence, the conditions of probation, or the amount owed by the defendant. 64. Defendants have not identified any information likely to be contained in closed court files that would prejudice the government or third parties if it were disclosed to Plaintiffs. To the extent that criminal files contain such information, Defendants are required by law to withhold, by redaction or other means, only those portions of the record not subject to public disclosure. 65. Defendants have offered no less-restrictive alternatives to barring direct access to the records. 66. Defendants have not shown that any private or public interest outweighs Plaintiffs interest in accessing Recorder s Court files. 67. Defendants failed to identify any legal authority that they are relying on to deny Plaintiffs request to inspect court records. 20

21 Case 4:16-cv CDL Document 1-1 Filed 12/01/16 Page 21 of 29 CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT I VIOLATIONS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION (42 U.S.C. 1983) (Asserted by all Plaintiffs against all Defendants) 68. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 9 and as if set out herein. 69. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits the government from abridging the freedom of speech. 70. Defendants abridged Plaintiffs freedom of speech by burdening Plaintiffs access to court records without any substantial or compelling justification. 71. Defendants abridged Plaintiffs freedom of speech by burdening Plaintiffs access to court records without narrowly tailoring the restriction to a substantial or compelling justification. COUI ~4T II VIOLATIONS OF THE GEORGIA OPEN RECORDS ACT O.C.G.A ET SEQ. (By all Plaintiffs against all Defendants) 72. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 9 and as if set out herein. 21

22 Case 4:16-cv CDL Document 1-1 Filed 12/01/16 Page 22 of Under Rule 6 ofthe Georgia Uniform Municipal Court Rules, the Recorder s Court is subject to the Georgia Open Records Act, O.C.G.A , et seq. 74. Plaintiffs have a presumptive right under the Georgia Open Records Act to inspect the criminal case files of the Recorder s Court. 75. The Open Records Act recognizes a presumptive right of a Georgia citizen to make a personal inspection of any record unless the record is specifically exempted from disclosure by a court order or statutory provision. O.C.G.A (a). 76. The Open Records Act places the burden on government agencies to justify any claimed exemption and provides a presumptive time limit of three days in which to invoke the exemption. O.C.G.A (d). The Act further requires an agency to notify the requester of the specific legal authority exempting the requested record or records from disclosure by Code section, subsection, and paragraph. Id. 77. Defendants failed to identify any legal authority that they are relying on to deny Plaintiffs requests to inspect court records. 78. Defendants have failed to identify a court order or statutory provision specifically exempting Recorder s Court files from personal inspection. 22

23 Case 4:16-cv CDL Document 1-1 Filed 12/01/16 Page 23 of Defendants failures to comply with the provisions of the Open Records Act are knowing and willful. 80. Defendants failures to comply with the provisions of the Open Records Act are intended to frustrate Plaintiffs access to records by making the records difficult to obtain or review. COUNT III VIOLATIONS OF THE GEORGIA COMMoN LAW RIGHT TO ACCESS COURT RECORDS (By all Plaintiffs against Defendants) 81. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 9 and as if set out herein. 82. Georgia law recognizes that court records are presumptively open to the public for personal inspection. The party seeking to seal court records has the burden ofproving that the interest in sealing the records outweighs the public interest in viewing them. 83. Defendants have failed to articulate an interest that would be served by barring access to Recorder s Court files. 84. Defendants have failed to show that any private interest in keeping the records sealed outweighs Plaintiffs interest in viewing Recorder s Court files. 23

24 Case 4:16-cv CDL Document 1-1 Filed 12/01/16 Page 24 of 29 COUNT IV MANDAMUS ABSOLUTE (By all Plaintiffs against Defendant Ezell) 85. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 9 and as if set out herein. 86. Plaintiffs seek mandamus relief to compel Defendant Ezell to perform her mandatory and nondiscretionary duties to maintain records, as required by court rules and the Columbus Charter, and to permit public access to court records. 87. Rule 6 ofthe Uniform Municipal Court Rules states, in part: All court records are public and are to be available for inspection in accordance with and as limited by the Georgia Open Records Act, as amended. 88. Section of the Columbus Charter states: The [Recorder s] court shall have a clerk... who shall prepare the court dockets, maintain all court records, and serve as the court s Chief Administrative Officer. 89. The Defendants refuse to make court records public and available for inspection as required by Rule 6 of the Uniform Municipal Court Rules. Defendant Ezell fails to maintain all court records as required by Section of the Columbus Charter. 90. Defendant Ezell has a clear and nondiscretionary duty to maintain all court records and to provide public access to public court records. 24

25 Case 4:16-cv CDL Document 1-1 Filed 12/01/16 Page 25 of There is no other legal relief available to ensure that Defendant Ezell maintains court records. 92. Accordingly, Plaintiffs request that this Court grant mandamus nisi, and after a hearing, issue mandamus absolute pursuant to O.C.G.A against Defendant Ezell requiring her to maintain and make available public court files, in accordance with law. COUNT V VIOLATIONS OF THE FO1JRTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION (42 U.S.C. 1983) (By all Plaintiffs against Defendants) 93. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 9 and as if set out herein. 94. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states that a person cannot be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law. 95. The Due Process Clause ofthe Fourteenth Amendment prevents the government from taking arbitrary and capricious government action. 96. Defendants abridged Plaintiffs rights under the Due Process Clause by burdening Plaintiffs access to court records without any rational justification. The Defendants policy of barring access to public court documents frustrates Plaintiffs efforts to appeal the judgments against them. 25

26 Case 4:16-cv CDL Document 1-1 Filed 12/01/16 Page 26 of Defendants abridged Plaintiffs rights under the Due Process Clause by arbitrarily and capriciously denying Plaintiffs access to their own criminal court files. REQUEST FOR RELIEF Plaintiffs requestthat the Court issue the following relief: 1. Enter a judgment declaring that Defendants violated Plaintiffs rights under the United States Constitution and Georgia law; 2. Enter an order preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendants from enforcing their unlawful policies; 3. Enter a mandamus nisi, and thereafter, a mandamus absolute; 4. Enter a judgment awarding Plaintiffs compensatory, nominal, and punitive damages; and 5. Enter an order and judgment granting reasonable attorneys fees and costs under 42 U.S.C and O.C.G.A (b). Respectfully submitted this 9th day ofnovember, j ~ ~ Sarah Geraghty Georgia Bar No Atteeyah Hollie Georgia Bar No Ryan Primerano Georgia Bar No SOUTHERN CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS 83 Poplar Street N.W. Atlanta, GA (404)

27 Case 4:16-cv CDL Document 1-1 Filed 12/01/16 Page 27 of 29 (404) (fax) sgeraghty~schr.org Mark C. Post Georgia Bar No HARP, POYDASHEFF, POST & SOWERS, LLC P.O. Box 1172 Columbus, Georgia (706) (706) (fax) Counselfor the Plaintiffs 27

28 Case 4:16-cv CDL Document 1-1 Filed 12/01/16 Page 28 of 29 PLAINTIFF S VERIFICATION I, EU2~~\L t~btiv~ kb hereby swear and affirm under penalty of perjury that I have reviewed the foregoing document and that the factual information contained therein is true and correct to the best ofmy knowledge. 2~L~ ~ ~-~---~ EIiza~eth Harris King Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of ~ ~,2016. Notary Public My commission expires: J 28

29 Case 4:16-cv CDL Document 1-1 Filed 12/01/16 Page 29 of 29 PLAINTIFF S VERIFICATION i, i~~, do hereby swear and affirm under penalty of perjury that I have reviewed the foregoing document and that the factual information contained therein is true and correct to the best ofmy knowledge.,4awrigi4l~ Sworn to and subscribed before me this ~ ~,2016. ~xc~aw~uut~ Notary IPt~blic My commission expires: 27