PETERSON v. DEKMAR, A18D0129. (2017)
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Number: ingaco20171024432
Visitors: 10
Filed: Oct. 18, 2017
Latest Update: Oct. 18, 2017
Summary: Order Inmate Joe W. Peterson filed a complaint, asserting claims for false arrest and false imprisonment against twelve defendants, including several police officers employed by the City of LaGrange. On December 15, 2016, the trial court entered an order dismissing three of the defendants from the action. On August 25, 2017, the trial court granted the remaining defendants' motion for summary judgment against all of Peterson's claims. Peterson then filed this pro se application for discretiona
Summary: Order Inmate Joe W. Peterson filed a complaint, asserting claims for false arrest and false imprisonment against twelve defendants, including several police officers employed by the City of LaGrange. On December 15, 2016, the trial court entered an order dismissing three of the defendants from the action. On August 25, 2017, the trial court granted the remaining defendants' motion for summary judgment against all of Peterson's claims. Peterson then filed this pro se application for discretionar..
More
Order
Inmate Joe W. Peterson filed a complaint, asserting claims for false arrest and false imprisonment against twelve defendants, including several police officers employed by the City of LaGrange. On December 15, 2016, the trial court entered an order dismissing three of the defendants from the action. On August 25, 2017, the trial court granted the remaining defendants' motion for summary judgment against all of Peterson's claims. Peterson then filed this pro se application for discretionary appeal on September 29, 2017.1 He also has filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. We, however, lack jurisdiction.
To be timely, a discretionary application must be filed within 30 days of entry of the order to be appealed. OCGA § 5-6-35 (d). The requirements of OCGA § 5-6-35 are jurisdictional, and this Court cannot accept an application for appeal not made in compliance therewith. Boyle v. State, 190 Ga.App. 734, 734 (380 S.E.2d 57) (1989). Because this application was filed 35 days after entry of the order Peterson seeks to appeal, it is untimely, and we lack jurisdiction to consider it. Accordingly, this application is hereby DISMISSED.
In light of this disposition, Peterson's motion for the appointment of counsel is hereby DENIED as MOOT.
FootNotes
1. Because he was incarcerated when he initiated this action, Peterson's appeal is controlled by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, OCGA § 42-12-1 et seq. Under OCGA § 42-12-8, "[a]ppeals of all actions filed by prisoners shall be as provided in Code Section 5-6-35," the discretionary appeals statute.
Source: Leagle
