City of Statham Court Filings and Public Records

This page provides public access to court filings concerning City of Statham Officials. IIt Includes Motions, timelines, and related case documents. 

State-Law Complaint for Damages and Exhibits - Howard v. Cocchiola and Underwood

Court: Superior Court of Barrow County, Georgia

Case: Lamont Howard v. Austin Cocchiola and Ira Underwood

Civil action number: 26-CV-000880-B

Filed: June 23, 2026

Filed by: Lamont Howard, plaintiff proceeding without an attorney

Defendants: Austin Cocchiola and Ira Underwood, named in their individual capacities

Length: 27 pages, consisting of a 16-page complaint and 11 pages of exhibits

This complaint asserts Georgia state-law claims arising from the investigation and arrest-warrant process that followed a citizen complaint concerning the Statham Police Department. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants coordinated an internal investigation, procured three arrest warrants without probable cause, and acted with a retaliatory purpose.

The complaint identifies warrants concerning an alleged false report of a crime, permitting an unlicensed person to drive, and false statements and writings. It states that the prosecuting authorities later dismissed or declined to file accusations concerning the warrants.

The asserted causes of action include malicious prosecution, malicious arrest and unlawful detention, abuse of process, and a derivative civil-conspiracy theory. The plaintiff requests compensatory, special, consequential, and punitive damages, litigation expenses, interest, costs, and a jury trial.

The exhibits include Statham Police Department incident reports, a citizen complaint, internal-investigation findings, three warrant affidavits, a notice dismissing a warrant, a notice that no accusation would be filed, and a certificate of service.

This filing contains the plaintiff’s allegations and requests for relief. The underlying events and procedural history are supported by the attached official records and prior official determinations. The complaint separately asks the court to determine the defendants’ civil liability and the relief to be awarded.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Supporting Brief, and Answer to Complaint

Court: Superior Court of Barrow County, Georgia
Case: Lamont Howard v. Ira Underwood and Austin Cocchiola
Civil action number: 26-CV-000880-B
Filed: July 17, 2026
Filed by: Attorney J. Scott Key on behalf of the defendants
Length: 15 pages

This combined file contains the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, supporting legal brief, Answer to the Complaint, and certificates of service.

The defendants ask the court to dismiss the complaint under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Their supporting brief initially argues that the complaint does not allege municipal ante litem notice, that the plaintiff’s request for a decision without oral argument should permit disposition on the pleadings, and that the individual claims for malicious prosecution, malicious arrest, abuse of process, and civil conspiracy are legally insufficient. The brief also asserts that the defendants are entitled to official immunity.

In their Answer, the defendants admit, deny, or state that they lack sufficient information to respond to the numbered allegations in the complaint. The defendants later withdrew their ante litem notice argument in their August 6, 2026 reply.

This file presents the defendants’ allegations, defenses, and legal arguments. 

Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

Court: Superior Court of Barrow County, Georgia
Case: Lamont Howard v. Austin Cocchiola and Ira Underwood
Civil action number: 26-CV-000880-B
Filed: July 24, 2026
Filed by: Lamont Howard, plaintiff proceeding without an attorney
Filing pagination: 31 pages

This filing responds to the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and replies to the affirmative defenses stated in their Answer.

The plaintiff argues that Georgia’s notice-pleading standard requires the complaint’s factual allegations to be accepted as true at the dismissal stage. The response contends that the municipal ante litem statute does not require dismissal of claims against officers sued only in their individual capacities and that requesting a decision without oral argument did not waive discovery, evidence, trial, or a jury determination.

The plaintiff further argues that the complaint sufficiently states claims involving malicious prosecution, malicious arrest and detention, alleged misuse of criminal process, and derivative civil conspiracy. It maintains that questions concerning probable cause, intent, actual malice, and official immunity require factual development and should not be resolved through a motion to dismiss.

The response asks the court to deny the Motion to Dismiss or allow the plaintiff to amend any claim the court finds insufficiently pleaded.

This document presents the plaintiff’s allegations and legal arguments. 

Plaintiff’s Objection to Rule Nisi and Motion to Vacate Hearing Notice

Court: Superior Court of Barrow County, Georgia
Case: Lamont Howard v. Ira Underwood and Austin Cocchiola
Civil action number: 26-CV-000880-B
Filed: August 5, 2026
Filed by: Lamont Howard, plaintiff proceeding without an attorney
Length: 64 pages, including three exhibits

This filing objects to the Rule Nisi entered by the court on August 4, 2026, which scheduled oral argument on the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for November 2, 2026.

The plaintiff asks the court to vacate the Rule Nisi, decide the Motion to Dismiss from the written briefs and record under Uniform Superior Court Rule 6.3, and issue an expedited ruling before the scheduled hearing. The plaintiff argues that the dismissal motion presents legal questions that have already been fully briefed and that oral argument would unnecessarily duplicate the written submissions.

The attached materials include the Complaint and its exhibits, the plaintiff’s complete Response in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, and the court’s August 4, 2026 Rule Nisi.

This filing records the plaintiff’s Objection and request to vacate the Rule Nisi hearing. 

Defendants’ Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss

Court: Superior Court of Barrow County, Georgia
Case: Lamont Howard v. Ira Underwood and Austin Cocchiola
Civil action number: 26-CV-000880-B
Filed: August 6, 2026
Filed by: Attorney J. Scott Key on behalf of the defendants
Length: 6 pages

This filing replies to the plaintiff’s opposition to the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

The defendants withdraw their earlier argument concerning municipal ante litem notice. They continue to argue that the complaint does not sufficiently state a statutory malicious-prosecution claim because, in their view, it fails to plead facts establishing lack of probable cause and actual malice.

The reply also argues that the issuance of the arrest warrants and the documents attached to the complaint support probable cause. The defendants maintain that investigating alleged crimes and seeking warrants were discretionary law-enforcement functions and that the officers are entitled to official immunity because the complaint allegedly does not plead sufficient facts showing a deliberate intent to do wrong.

The defendants ask the court to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim.

This filing presents the defendants’ legal arguments. 

Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss

Court: Superior Court of Barrow County, Georgia
Case: Lamont Howard v. Austin Cocchiola and Ira Underwood
Civil action number: 26-CV-000880-B
Filed: August 7, 2026
Filed by: Lamont Howard, plaintiff proceeding without an attorney
Length: 35 pages, consisting of an 8-page response and a 27-page copy of the Complaint and exhibits

This filing responds to the defendants’ August 6 reply supporting dismissal.

The plaintiff argues that Georgia’s notice-pleading standard does not permit the court to treat disputed facts as established at the dismissal stage. The response contends that the complaint’s reference to common-law malicious prosecution should be construed according to the substance of the allegations and the governing Georgia statute.

The plaintiff further argues that the warrant affidavits allegedly contained false or incomplete information, that a magistrate’s issuance of the warrants is not conclusive proof of probable cause, and that disputed questions involving intent, retaliation, actual malice, and official immunity require factual development.

The response asks the court to deny the Motion to Dismiss, preserve the statutory malicious-prosecution and derivative conspiracy theories, or allow amendment of any technically deficient claim. It also requests a decision based on the written briefs without oral argument.

The attached Exhibit J reproduces the original Complaint and its supporting exhibits.

This filing presents the plaintiff’s allegations and legal arguments. 

Court of Appeals of Georgia — Notice of Docketing

Appeal No. A27A0293 — Lamont Howard v. Ira Underwood, et al.

This official Notice of Docketing from the Court of Appeals of Georgia documents the docketing of Appeal No. A27A0293, Lamont Howard v. Ira Underwood, et al., on August 27, 2026. The notice identifies the underlying matter as Barrow County Superior Court Civil Action No. 26CV000880 and acknowledges the Court of Appeals' receipt and filing of the appellate Record Index and Record. 

The document establishes the appellate case number and confirms that the record from the Superior Court was transmitted to and received by the Court of Appeals for consideration of the appeal.

Document type: Official Court of Appeals Notice of Docketing

Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia

Appeal: A27A0293

Date docketed: August 27, 2026

Originating court: Barrow County Superior Court

Underlying civil action: 26CV000880

Appellant's Brief — Court of Appeals Case No. A27A0293

Lamont Howard v. Ira Underwood and Austin Cocchiola

This Appellant's Brief, filed in the Court of Appeals of Georgia in Case No. A27A0293, challenges the Barrow County Superior Court's August 14, 2026 order dismissing the underlying complaint with prejudice. The appeal concerns the dismissal, at the pleading stage, of Georgia-law claims arising from allegations involving an internal police investigation, the procurement of criminal warrants, and the subsequent termination of the prosecution without conviction. 

The brief presents seven enumerations of error, including arguments concerning Georgia's Rule 12(b)(6) notice-pleading standard, the sufficiency of the malicious-prosecution allegations, probable cause, official immunity, alternative legal labels, allegations concerning Chief Ira Underwood's personal participation, and dismissal with prejudice without an opportunity to amend. 

The brief argues that the trial court improperly required greater factual specificity than Georgia notice pleading requires and improperly resolved factual inferences against the appellant at the motion-to-dismiss stage. It further argues that the issuance of warrants did not conclusively resolve probable cause where the complaint alleged that the warrant process itself involved knowing misrepresentations or material omissions. 

Regarding official immunity, the brief contends that dismissal was premature because the complaint alleged actual malice, deliberate wrongdoing, specific intent to cause injury, and knowing or intentional procurement of warrants through material misrepresentations and omissions. The brief argues that whether those allegations ultimately can be proven is distinct from whether they are sufficient at the pleading stage. 

The appellant asks the Court of Appeals to reverse the dismissal at least as to malicious prosecution and derivative theories, vacate the remainder of the dismissal with prejudice, and remand the case for further proceedings, including discovery and, if greater pleading specificity is required, an opportunity to amend. The brief also states that the appeal may be decided on the briefs and appellate record without oral argument pursuant to Georgia Court of Appeals Rule 28. 

Document type: Appellant's Brief

Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia, Second Division

Appeal: A27A0293

Underlying case: Barrow County Superior Court Civil Action No. 26-CV-000880-B

Appellant: Lamont Howard, Pro Se

Appellees: Ira Underwood and Austin Cocchiola

Relief requested: Reversal and/or vacatur of the dismissal with prejudice and remand for further proceedings.