A former Georgia judge, removed from the bench for misconduct, has launched a staggering $50 million federal lawsuit against the City of Atlanta and a police officer following her 𝓿𝒾𝓇𝒶𝓁 arrest outside a nightclub last summer. Christina Peterson, once a Douglas County probate judge, alleges false arrest, excessive force, and a coordinated 𝓈𝓂𝑒𝒶𝓇 campaign after body camera footage of the chaotic incident spread online.
The lawsuit centers on events in the early hours of June 21, 2024, outside the Red Martini nightclub. Peterson claims she was a bystander attempting to intervene when she saw a man assaulting a woman. The newly filed complaint states she used “minimal nonviolent contact” to separate the individuals and did not threaten or strike anyone.
Body camera footage tells a conflicting story. It shows a tumultuous scene with yelling and confusion before an officer announces, “The judge just punched the cop.” Peterson was subsequently apprehended by Atlanta Police Officer Keith Wodsworth, the video depicting her being taken to the ground. She was charged with simple battery and felony obstruction.
In her legal filing, Peterson alleges Officer Wodsworth “violently slammed [her] head first to the ground” without any prior investigation or command. She claims he had no personal knowledge of the altercation and made no attempt to interview witnesses before using force. The suit contends this constituted an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
Peterson further alleges her detention was unlawfully prolonged. She states she was held in a patrol car for four to five hours while Wodsworth drove erratically and made private phone calls. Throughout the footage, she repeatedly refuses to provide her name to officers, demanding they call a specific Atlanta PD contact to vouch for her.
The encounter grew increasingly tense, with Peterson making a series of ominous statements to the officer. “The last person that ever tried me like this died 30 days later. I pray for you,” she is heard saying in the body camera audio. At the jail processing center, the exchange became more hostile, with Peterson yelling at officers to stop touching her.
Notably, the criminal charges against Peterson were later dismissed. A judge dropped the felony obstruction and simple battery charges for “want of prosecution,” according to reports. She may still face a misdemeanor obstruction charge, but the dismissal forms a key part of her civil claim for malicious prosecution.
Peterson’s removal from the bench by the Georgia Supreme Court in 2024 is a separate matter. The court ousted her for a “pattern of misconduct” and “flagrant disregard for the law” in unrelated judicial conduct cases. She remains a licensed attorney in good standing and is representing herself pro se in this new civil action.
The lawsuit levies nine counts against Officer Wodsworth and the city. Federal claims under Section 1983 include false arrest, excessive force, unlawful detention, and malicious prosecution. State law claims include battery and 𝒶𝓈𝓈𝒶𝓊𝓁𝓉. A significant allegation targets the city’s release of the body camera footage.
Peterson argues the city “approved, released, and affirmatively promoted” edited footage that falsely implied she committed felony crimes. The suit claims this was done before any judicial determination and continued even after charges were dismissed, publicly branding her a violent felon without due process.
To hold the city liable, the suit invokes Monell doctrine, alleging Atlanta had prior notice of Officer Wodsworth’s alleged pattern of unconstitutional conduct but failed to supervise, train, or discipline him. It claims the city’s customs directly led to the violation of her constitutional rights.
The plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages believed to exceed $50 million for physical injury, emotional distress, loss of liberty, and severe reputational harm. The figure reflects the profound professional damage she claims to have suffered from the widespread dissemination of the arrest narrative.
Legal experts anticipate qualified immunity will be a central defense for Officer Wodsworth. This legal shield protects officers from liability unless they violate a clearly established constitutional right. The defense will likely argue his actions were reasonable given the chaotic scene and Peterson’s lack of cooperation.
The city is expected to distance itself from Wodsworth’s actions, arguing it lacks a policy or custom that caused the alleged harm. It may also defend the release of body camera footage as a standard practice in the public interest, protected under the First Amendment and state transparency laws.
The case presents a complex clash between police authority, public perception, and individual rights. Peterson’s status as a former judge and her decision to represent herself add unique layers to the high-stakes litigation. The lawsuit demands a jury trial to resolve the sharply conflicting accounts of that early morning confrontation.
All parties now enter a discovery phase where evidence, including Officer Wodsworth’s full personnel record and unedited footage, will be scrutinized. The outcome will hinge on whether a jury finds the officer’s actions objectively reasonable or a reckless violation of a former judge’s civil rights.