MOORE v. CITY OF STATESBORO Et Al.
340 Ga. App. 45
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Alvin Lavon Moore filed a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief in Bulloch County; the trial court clerk returned the petition and presented Moore’s filing to a judge under OCGA § 9-15-2(d).
- The trial court entered an order finding the pleading showed a "complete absence of any justiciable issue" and therefore denied (1) filing the petition under OCGA § 9-15-2(d) and (2) Moore’s application to proceed in forma pauperis.
- The record transmitted on appeal contained only the transfer order, Moore’s notice of appeal, and the trial court’s denial order; the underlying complaint and pauper affidavit were not included.
- Moore appealed pro se to the Georgia Supreme Court, which transferred the case to the Court of Appeals; Moore argued the court erred in denying filing under OCGA § 9-15-2(d) and in denying pauper status, and he also complained of record defects.
- The Court of Appeals concluded it could not meaningfully review the § 9-15-2(d) ruling or the pauper determination because the denied pleading and the in forma pauperis affidavit were not in the record.
- The Court vacated the trial court’s order and remanded, directing the trial court to supplement the record with the denied pleading and the pauper affidavit and to reconsider the pauper request on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of filing under OCGA § 9-15-2(d) was proper | Moore contends the court wrongly refused to file his pro se pleading | City/defendants relied on trial court’s finding that the pleading showed no justiciable issue | Vacated and remanded because the denied pleading was not in the record, preventing meaningful review |
| Whether summary denial of in forma pauperis was proper | Moore argues the pauper request should have been granted or considered on merits | Trial court denied pauper status after concluding the petition failed to state a claim | Vacated and remanded; trial court must supplement record with pauper affidavit and consider request on merits |
| Whether appellate record was sufficient for review | Moore claims clerk returned complaint and failed to include it in the record | Appellees relied on the existing trial-court order and record transmitted | Court found record deficient and ordered supplementation to permit review |
| Whether sanctions were warranted against Moore | N/A (Moore sought relief; appellees moved for sanctions) | Appellees requested sanctions | Motion for sanctions denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Collier v. Kroger Co., 299 Ga. App. 660 (review pro se complaint in light most favorable to appellant)
- Grant v. Byrd, 265 Ga. 684 (pro se pleadings not held to stringent pleading standards)
- Moore v. First Family Financial Svcs., 246 Ga. App. 89 (review of pro se allegations before reversing denial under § 9-15-2(d))
- Verdi v. Wilkinson Cnty., 288 Ga. App. 856 (right of access to courts; caution in refusing to file pro se complaints)
- Thompson v. Reichert, 318 Ga. App. 23 (trial courts must exercise great caution before refusing to file under § 9-15-2(d))
- Yizar v. Ault, 265 Ga. 708 (untraversed pauper affidavit may show inability to pay; court should revisit pauper affidavit on remand)
- Daker v. Humphrey, 294 Ga. 504 (reversal where court denied filing and pauper motion; directs court to revisit pauper affidavit)
- Grace v. Caldwell, 231 Ga. 407 (trial court’s factual ruling on ability to pay is final on facts)
- McBride v. Gaither, 203 Ga. App. 885 (court may review allegations when denying filing under § 9-15-2(d))
- D’Zesati v. Poole, 174 Ga. App. 142 (trial court’s ruling on ability to pay is final on facts)