Filed: Nov. 02, 2017
Latest Update: Nov. 02, 2017
Summary: Order Daniel W. Taylor, a prisoner with the Georgia Department of Corrections, filed a pro se "complaint to stop garnishment" against the Department and its superintendent. The trial court dismissed his complaint, and Taylor filed this direct appeal. We, however, lack jurisdiction. Because Taylor is incarcerated, his appeal is controlled by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, OCGA 42-12-1 et seq. Under OCGA 42-12-8, an appeal of a civil action filed by a prisoner "shall be as provid
Summary: Order Daniel W. Taylor, a prisoner with the Georgia Department of Corrections, filed a pro se "complaint to stop garnishment" against the Department and its superintendent. The trial court dismissed his complaint, and Taylor filed this direct appeal. We, however, lack jurisdiction. Because Taylor is incarcerated, his appeal is controlled by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, OCGA 42-12-1 et seq. Under OCGA 42-12-8, an appeal of a civil action filed by a prisoner "shall be as provide..
More
Order
Daniel W. Taylor, a prisoner with the Georgia Department of Corrections, filed a pro se "complaint to stop garnishment" against the Department and its superintendent. The trial court dismissed his complaint, and Taylor filed this direct appeal. We, however, lack jurisdiction.
Because Taylor is incarcerated, his appeal is controlled by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, OCGA § 42-12-1 et seq. Under OCGA § 42-12-8, an appeal of a civil action filed by a prisoner "shall be as provided in Code Section 5-6-35." And under OCGA § 5-6-35, a party must file an application for discretionary appeal. Because Taylor failed to do so here, this appeal must be dismissed. See Jones v. Townsend, 267 Ga. 489 (480 S.E.2d 24) (1997).
But even if Taylor were not currently incarcerated, this appeal would still be subject to dismissal because appeals in cases involving garnishment must also be initiated by discretionary application. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (4) and (b); Maloy v. Ewing, 226 Ga.App. 490, 491 (486 S.E.2d 708) (1997). For these reasons, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.
