IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

BARRY W. RAYNER )
Plaintiff, )CASE No. ____________________
)
vs. )
)
COBB COUNTY, et al. )
Defendant )

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

COMES NOW, Plaintiff Barry W. Rayner and files Verified Emergency Petition for

Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction pursuant to 65 Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure 65(b) against the listed Defendants and moves this Court to issue a Temporary

Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction requiring the Defendant Donald L Bartlett and Cobb

County Adult Detention Center from violating the Plaintiff's civil rights secured by the Constitution

of the United States and the State of Georgia or, in the alternative, Order the removal of the Plaintiff

from Cobb County Adult Detention Center to the Atlanta City Jail.

In support of this motion, plaintiff relies upon the attached memorandum of points and

authorities.

A proposed order is attached.

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

Respectfully Submitted,

______________________________
Barry W. Rayner
c/o
Cobb County Adult Detention Center
SOID # 001018021,
P.O. Box 100110, Marietta, GA 30061
.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

BARRY W. RAYNER )
Plaintiff, )CASE No. ____________________
)
vs. )
)
COBB COUNTY, et al. )
Defendant )

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

INTRODUCTION

This action arises from a civil action under 42 U.S.C § 1983 seeking damages and injunctive

relief against Defendants for committing acts, under color of law, with the intent and for the purpose

of depriving Plaintiff of rights secured under the Constitution and laws of the United States and the

State of Georgia; denying him necessary medical care and then assaulting him, both physically and

sexually and then drugging him repeatedly and placing naked in an isolation cell without notice or

a hearing when he availed himself the institutional grievance procedure to report the abuse.

Plaintiff's life was threatened by correctional officers for reporting an attack and sexual

assault on the Plaintiff by Cobb County Adult Detention (CCDC) correctional officers. The sexual

assault on the Plaintiff was taken to a solitary confinement cell out of retaliation for insisting that

he receive medical care during the intake process.

Plaintiff was dragged to an isolation cell assaulted and stripped of his clothing and then

sexually assaulted. Plaintiff was then assaulted multiple times and injected with drugs multiple times
over a three (3) day period and at one point forcibly clothed in garments contaminated by human

waste.

Initially, after the Plaintiff reported the attack and an investigation was initiated against the

officers involved, improper behavior on behalf of correctional officers was first informally admitted

by high ranking administrative staff, but since then a cover-up and abuse have followed .

The Defendants are now retaliating against the Plaintiff daily, threatening and endangering

his life and subjecting Plaintiff to cruel and unusual punishment in various ways every day. Plaintiff

now brings this civil rights complaint to enforce his rights secured under the Constitution of the

United States.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1 On October, 02, 2014, Plaintiff was stopped for a traffic violation. Uupon a routine

background check was arrested for on an outstanding warrant in Cobb County for failure to appear.

Plaintiff was subsequently booked into Atlanta City Jail and held there for approximately four (4)

days.

2 During his above referenced time in the Atlanta City Jail the Plaintiff developed an

infection in his nose (later determined to be a staph infection in his sinus) that had spread beyond

the sinuses to the bones of the face and his right eye was swollen shut. The Plaintiff began

experiencing swelling around the eyes and a fever, however, Plaintiff was transferred to the Cobb

County Jail before he could obtain treatment for his medical problems.

3 Later, on October 06, 2014, at "23:05", when the Plaintiff arrived at the Cobb County

Jail, he was in severe pain from his sinus infection. He was booked into Cobb County Jail.

Denial of Necessary Medical Service

4 While Plaintiff was still going through the booking process awaiting the routine jail medical

Rayner v. Cobb County, et al. -3-

screening, apparently the nurse conducting the screening process went on a break just before the

Petitioner could get his medical screening.

5 Plaintiff then heard a sheriff's deputy (later identified as Defendant Deputy McCracken)

announce loudly, indicating towards the area in which Plaintiff was sitting and stated, "everyone over

here is done".

6 When Plaintiff objected to not receiving a medical screening and care for his nasal infection

by notifying one of the correctional officers. At first the officer argued with the Plaintiff and ignored

him.

7 But later, after the Plaintiff was proven right the officer became agitated after thereafter

conspired with several other correctional officer to remove the Plaintiff to isolation cells, where he

was forcibly stripped of his clothing in front of female officers and then sexually assaulted by

slapping him on his buttocks and probing his buttocks with a flashlight in a sexual manner. Plaintiff

was then left naked ion a cell because he was given only dirty clothes to wear that smelled strongly

of human waste.

8 After the Plaintiff began complaining loudly and asking for help and a grievance form the

Plaintiff was repeatedly physically assaulted and drugged repeatedly.

9 Later, after many hours in isolation Plaintiff was able to speak with a high ranking

correctional officer about the physical and sexual assaults and made a report and was released into

general population.

10 However, after only approximately an hour in general population Plaintiff was inexplicably

removed by two (2) correctional officers from general population, threatened with physical harm for

reporting the sexual assaults and marched right back into the isolation cell where he was again

assaulted, forcibly stripped naked, given dirty clothes to wear soiled in human waste and then

Rayner v. Cobb County, et al. -4-

drugged heavily.

11 When the Plaintiff’s mother filed an Open Records Request to Deena Fincher, Cobb County

Records Custodian, Plaintiff’s mother received documents that show that the Plaintiff was placed

in an isolation cells for no specific reason and then assaulted for simply objecting to be embarrassed

in front of the female staff by taking off his clothes. (See See Deena Fincher's email response to

Open Record’s Request, including attachments, attached hereto as Exhibit A)

12 After the Plaintiff was again moved back to general population Plaintiff was denied the right

to avail the institutional grievance procedure. Plaintiff was denied grievance forms unless the

Plaintiff disclosed why he wanted the forms. If the Plaintiff did not state what the grievance

concerned he is denied access to grievance forms.

13 Plaintiff has been subjected to a variety of arbitrary punishments since he reported the sexual

assault. When correctional officials learned of the pending allegations stemming from the incident,

they began to initiate bogus disciplinary charges and would not tell the Plaintiff the nature of the

charges .

14 The same officer who wrote disciplinary charge would be the same disciplinary officer to

hold an impromptu hearing without the Plaintiff present, conclude that the he was guilty of

disciplinary infractions and then punish the Plaintiff by denying him commissary, phone and

visitation privileges.

15 On multiple occasions when the Plaintiff refused an order perform manual labor as a pre-trial

detainee the correctional staff would impose mass punishments on the entire prison dormitory in an

effort to get the someone to assault the Plaintiff, announcing that the Plaintiff was responsible for

the mass punishments. In this way the Plaintiff is constantly put into strife and subject to assaults

by other inmates and forced to fight to defend himself and placed in imminent danger.

Rayner v. Cobb County, et al. -5-

 Argument

This Court Should Enjoin Cobb County and its Agents from Retaliating against the
Plaintiff, Blocking Communication with the Courts and with his Family and Otherwise
Denying him Due Process

16 To succeed on a motion for emergency injunctive relief pending appeal, the moving party

must satisfy the same factors necessary to prevail on a motion for preliminary injunctive relief before

a district court.

17 A district court may grant injunctive relief only if the moving party shows that: (1) it has a

substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury will be suffered unless the

injunction issues; (3) the threatened injury to the movant outweighs whatever damage the proposed

injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) if issued, the injunction would not be adverse to

the public interest. See McDonald's Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 1998) (citing

All Care Nursing Serv., Inc. v. Bethesda Mem'l Hosp., Inc., 887 F.2d 1535, 1537 (11th Cir. 1989)).

In this Circuit, "[a] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be granted

unless the movant clearly established the 'burden of persuasion'" as to each of the four prerequisites.

Id. (internal citation omitted); see also Texas v. Seatrain Int'l, S.A., 518 F.2d 175, 179 (5th Cir. 1975)

(grant of preliminary injunction "is the exception rather than the rule," and plaintiff must clearly

carry the burden of persuasion).

Plaintiff Faces Irreparable Harm in the Absence of a Preliminary Injunction

18 Because Plaintiff confront the continuing and imminent risk, the Plaintiff has presented this

Court with documents received from the Defendants that show clearly that the Plaintiff was

arbitrarily placed into a punitive detention cell for no stated reason whatsoever and then assaulted

merely for objecting to being humiliated.

19 Plaintiff has also averred that he was physically and sexually assaulted, that it was

Rayner v. Cobb County, et al. -6-

investigated by Cobb County Adult Detention Center officials and confirmed that there was wrong

doing.

20 The Plaintiff has also provided this Court documents relating to an open records request that

show the Defendants are clearly attempting to cover-up evidence of their wrong doing by blocking

his Open Records Requests and then threatening to throw him down the stairs.

21 A showing of irreparable injury is "'the sine qua non of injunctive relief.'" Northeastern Fla.

Chapter of the Ass'n of Gen. Contractors v. City of Jacksonville, 896 F.2d 1283, 1285 (11th Cir.

1990) (quoting Frejlach v. Butler, 573 F.2d 1026, 1027 (8th Cir. 1978)); see also Doran v. Salem Inn,

Inc., 422 U.S. 922, 931, 95 S. Ct. 2561, 2568 (1975) ("The traditional standard for granting a

preliminary injunction requires the plaintiff to show that in the absence of its issuance he will suffer

irreparable injury."); Robertson, 147 F.3d at 1306 (plaintiff must show "irreparable injury will be

suffered"); Harris Corp., 691 F.2d at 1356-57 (concluding that district court "did not abuse its

discretion in finding a substantial likelihood of irreparable injury to [the plaintiff] absent an

injunction"); Deerfield Med. Ctr. v. City of Deerfield Beach, 661 F.2d 328, 338 (5th Cir. 1981) (to

be granted a preliminary injunction plaintiffs must show "a substantial likelihood that they would

suffer irreparable injury").

22 In order to prevail on an Eighth Amendment challenge, Plaintiff must demonstrate that the

State is being deliberately indifferent to a condition that poses a substantial risk of serious harm to

him. Indeed, where an Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment claim alleges the risk of

future harm, “the conditions presenting the risk must be ‘ sure or very likely to cause serious illness

and needless suffering,’ and give rise to ‘sufficiently imminent dangers.’”

Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 at 50 (quoting Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33, 34-35 (1993)).

23 Plaintiff has demonstrated both a substantial threat of continuing irreparable harm and a

Rayner v. Cobb County, et al. -7-

strong likelihood of success on the merits.

Injunctive Relief Will Not Harm Third Parties and the Public Interest Favors the
Requested Emergency Injunctive Relief.

24 This Court's granting of Plaintiff emergency injunctive relief pending a more formal hearing

on the issue or during pendency of the above captioned complaint will not harm neither the

Defendants nor third parties. First, such relief will not impair Cobb County Detention Center's ability

to continue to operate the jail or otherwise impede the safe operations of the jail, In fact, it will

reinforce and emphasize the oath and duty of Cobb County jailer and be in Cobb County Jail’s

interest in maintaining order and security by treating humanely prisoners who may be brought to the

jail, pursuant to OCGA 42-4-2.

There is a Strong Public Interest in Granting Petitioners’ Motion

25 A nationwide heightened scrutiny over allegations of widespread abuse of jail inmates and

misconduct has resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements, judgments and legal fees

and in the interest of the professional operation and administration of jails in the State of Georgia

26 It is well established that there is a strong public interest in favor of the enforcement of public

laws and regulations concerning the operation of jails. O.C.G.A Sec. 351.001. DUTY TO

PROVIDE JAILS; LOCATION. (a) The commissioners court of a county shall provide safe and

suitable jails for the county.

Respectfully Submitted,

Barry W. Rayner
Cobb County Adult Detention Center
SOID # 001018021,
P.O. Box 100110,
Marietta, GA 30061

Rayner v. Cobb County, et al. -8-

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

BARRY W. RAYNER )
Plaintiff, )CASE No. ___________________
)
vs. )
)
COBB COUNTY, et al. )
Defendant )

ORDER

This matter came before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining

order and preliminary injunction. Upon due consideration of the pleadings and the circumstance the

Court finds that there is there is sufficient grounds to issue a temporary restraining order and

preliminary injunction .

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary

injunction is hereby GRANTED.

______________________________
United States District Court Judge
SO ORDERED.

This the _____ day of _________________, 2015.

Rayner v. Cobb County, et al. -9-

 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

It is hereby certified that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff’s Emergency

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum in Support

has been delivered to the Defendants by placing same in the U.S. Mail/hand-delivered on the

day of February, 2015, addressed to:

Deborah L. Dance
Cobb County Attorney's Office
100 Cherokee Street, Suite 350
Marietta, GA 30090-9689

Rayner v. Cobb County, et al. - 10 -