georgiacarry.org, Inc. v. Thomas C. Bordeaux, Jr.
352 Ga. App. 399
Ga. Ct. App.2019Background
- GeorgiaCarry.Org, William T. Moore III, and Shane Montgomery sued Chatham County Probate Judge Thomas C. Bordeaux seeking a writ of mandamus and declaratory relief for alleged delays in issuing weapons carry licenses in violation of OCGA § 16-11-129(d)(4).
- Complaint filed April 27, 2018; Moore applied Feb. 2, 2018 and Montgomery Oct. 13, 2017; both had received licenses by the August 7, 2018 hearing.
- Bordeaux moved to dismiss; the trial court dismissed the case. It found the mandamus claims as to Moore and Montgomery moot, ruled GeorgiaCarry lacked authorization to seek mandamus, held declaratory relief against Bordeaux in his official capacity barred by sovereign immunity, and found Bordeaux immune in his individual capacity.
- On appeal, plaintiffs challenged mootness, GeorgiaCarry’s standing, sovereign-immunity bar to declaratory relief against Bordeaux in his official capacity, and judicial-immunity bar to individual-capacity claims.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed mootness of the mandamus claims and sovereign-immunity as to official-capacity declaratory relief, but reversed the dismissal based on judicial immunity because judicial immunity does not bar declaratory relief against a judge in his individual capacity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of mandamus claims (Moore & Montgomery) | Mandamus still meaningful because plaintiffs retain an interest in timely process for future renewals; dispute capable of repetition. | Mandamus is moot once the duty has been performed (licenses issued). | Mandamus claims moot as to Moore and Montgomery because licenses were issued before the hearing. |
| GeorgiaCarry standing to seek relief | GeorgiaCarry seeks declaratory relief on behalf of members; it can bring the challenge. | Trial court: GeorgiaCarry not an authorized person to seek mandamus. | Court did not decide GeorgiaCarry’s standing for declaratory relief; mandamus standing ruling not controlling for declaratory claim. |
| Sovereign immunity for official-capacity declaratory relief | OCGA § 16-11-129(j) waives immunity by providing a private right to pursue mandamus/other proceedings. | Sovereign immunity bars suits against the State and its agencies; applies to declaratory relief unless waived by statute. | Sovereign immunity bars declaratory relief against Bordeaux in his official capacity; trial court correct. |
| Judicial immunity for individual-capacity claims | Judicial immunity bars suits against judges for acts in their judicial role. | Plaintiffs: judicial immunity does not bar declaratory or injunctive relief against judges in their individual capacity for unlawful acts. | Judicial immunity does not bar declaratory relief against Bordeaux in his individual capacity; trial court erred in dismissing those claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- R.A.F. v. Robinson, 286 Ga. 644 (mandamus moot once duty performed)
- GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. James, 298 Ga. 420 (mandamus moot where license issued before action)
- Moore v. Cranford, 285 Ga. App. 666 (mandamus moot but declaratory relief may proceed when issue capable of repetition)
- Olvera v. Univ. System of Ga. Board of Regents, 298 Ga. 425 (sovereign immunity bars declaratory relief against the State)
- Withers v. Schroeder, 304 Ga. 394 (judicial-immunity exceptions: nonjudicial acts or complete absence of jurisdiction)
- Lathrop v. Deal, 301 Ga. 408 (overview of Georgia sovereign-immunity doctrine)
- Florida State Hosp. v. Durham Iron Co., 194 Ga. 350 (suits against state officers in their individual capacity may lie for acts beyond authority)