Ellis Raspberry has taken a bold step in seeking justice against several officials associated with the Superior Court of Cobb County and the Georgia Department of Human Services. On February 20, 2026, Raspberry filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, against Brett E. Conway, Christopher Hansard, Candice Broce, Sarah Hurst, and Marshel Riley. The plaintiff accuses these defendants of violating his Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The case revolves around a series of judicial processes that took place while Raspberry was legally barred from participating due to an active restraining order effective until May 12, 2025. According to the complaint, on October 30, 2024, an order affecting Raspberry’s rights was signed in the Superior Court of Cobb County without his knowledge or participation. This order was presented by opposing counsel and certified by Brett E. Conway in his capacity as Staff Attorney for Senior Judges. Crucially, the Certificate of Service did not list Raspberry as having been served.
Raspberry argues that this oversight effectively denied him any meaningful opportunity to be heard—a fundamental requirement under procedural due process protections. Despite being legally prohibited from participating in these proceedings at the time due to the restraining order, enforcement actions were subsequently initiated based on this judicial process. When Raspberry requested a hearing to contest these enforcement actions, no such hearing was provided.
In his claim for relief, Raspberry asserts that he possessed protected liberty and property interests which were violated by the defendants’ actions. He contends that conducting proceedings while he was legally barred from participation rendered any opportunity to be heard meaningless and constituted a violation of procedural due process.
Raspberry is seeking several forms of relief from the court: a declaratory judgment stating that creating and enforcing judicial processes during periods when legal participation is barred violates procedural due process; compensatory damages against those defendants sued in their individual capacities; reimbursement for costs incurred; and any further relief deemed just by the court.
Representing himself pro se (in propria persona), Ellis Raspberry has laid out a compelling case alleging significant harm resulting from these alleged procedural missteps. The case is identified as Civil Action No: 1:26-cv-00923-AT with no attorneys listed for either party at this stage.
Source: 126cv00923_Ellis_Raspberry_v_Brett_Conway_Complaint_Northern_District_of_Georgia.pdf
