GEORGIACARRY.ORG. INC. v. THOMAS C. BORDEAUX, JR.
A21A0833
| Ga. Ct. App. | Jul 23, 2021Background
- GeorgiaCarry.Org, Shane Montgomery, and William Moore sued Chatham County Probate Judge Thomas Bordeaux seeking a writ of mandamus and declaratory relief for allegedly untimely processing of Georgia weapons carry license applications.
- Montgomery applied on October 13, 2017; Moore applied on February 2, 2018; both received permits before August 7, 2018, after the complaint was filed.
- The trial court dismissed the complaint in 2018; this Court in Bordeaux I affirmed dismissal of mandamus claims as moot, denied GeorgiaCarry standing for mandamus, and held sovereign immunity barred official-capacity relief, but found an individual-capacity claim against Bordeaux could proceed.
- On remand Bordeaux renewed a motion to dismiss; the trial court (Dec. 2020) dismissed the case again, reasoning (1) Bordeaux had no authority in his individual capacity to issue permits and (2) declaratory relief for Moore and Montgomery would be merely advisory because they had received permits.
- On this appeal the Court: reversed the dismissal to the extent it relied on the individual-capacity rationale (law of the case); affirmed dismissal of Moore and Montgomery’s declaratory-judgment claims as presenting no actual or imminent controversy; GeorgiaCarry’s declaratory claim remains pending (trial court made no ruling on its standing).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal was proper because Bordeaux lacked authority in his individual capacity to issue carry permits | GCO: prior appellate ruling (Bordeaux I) already held individual-capacity claim viable; trial court erred to dismiss on this basis | Bordeaux: he issues permits only in official/judicial capacity; no individual-capacity authority | Reversed dismissal on this ground; court held prior appellate decision is law of the case and trial court erred |
| Whether Moore and Montgomery’s declaratory-judgment claims present an actual or justiciable controversy | GCO: future reapplication risk (permits expire after five years); capable of repetition yet evading review; not moot | ||
| Bordeaux: issuance of permits eliminated any present injury; any future dispute is hypothetical and not imminent | |||
| Affirmed dismissal as to Moore and Montgomery: no actual or imminent injury; declaratory relief would be advisory or address speculative future contingencies | |||
| Whether GeorgiaCarry has standing / whether any declaratory claim survives | GCO: organization seeks declaratory relief regarding permit-processing practice | Bordeaux: standing not established; sovereign-immunity bars official-capacity relief (as decided earlier) | |
| Court left GeorgiaCarry’s declaratory claim pending for further proceedings; trial court must address standing and other issues consistent with this opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- GeorgiaCarry.Org v. Bordeaux, 352 Ga. App. 399 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019) (prior appellate decision resolving mootness, standing, and recognizing individual-capacity claim)
- Ross v. State, 344 Ga. App. 477 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018) (law-of-the-case principle binds lower-court proceedings)
- City of Atlanta v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 307 Ga. 877 (Ga. 2020) (definition and scope of "actual controversy" under Declaratory Judgment Act)
- Baker v. City of Marietta, 271 Ga. 210 (Ga. 1999) (declaratory relief requires actual or justiciable controversy; protects against advisory opinions)
- SJN Props. v. Fulton County Bd. of Assessors, 296 Ga. 793 (Ga. 2015) (declaratory relief is proper only where party faces uncertainty on which future conduct depends)
- Barrow v. Raffensperger, 308 Ga. 660 (Ga. 2020) (mootness is jurisdictional and must be resolved before merits)
- Strong v. JWM Holdings, 341 Ga. App. 309 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017) (court will not issue declaratory judgment based on possible or probable future contingencies)