Allan Joe v. Latisha Dear Jackson

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedMarch 16, 2026
DocketA26E0158
StatusPublished

This text of Allan Joe v. Latisha Dear Jackson (Allan Joe v. Latisha Dear Jackson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Allan Joe v. Latisha Dear Jackson, (Ga. Ct. App. 2026).

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ March 16, 2026

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A26E0158. JOE v. JACKSON.

Upon consideration of Allan Joe’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus or in the Alternative Writ of Prohibition in the above styled case, it is hereby ordered that the petition is DENIED. We observe that Joe seeks mandamus relief concerning civil actions currently pending in the Superior Court of DeKalb County. From the limited materials in the filings before us, it appears that Joe has filed more than two dozen motions in those cases and that the trial court has ruled on all of them.«see pet. at pdf 185-196 (order addressing 22 pending motions in Case No. 24CV8522-7); pdf 197-200 (order addressing 7 pending motions in Case No. 25FM6968-7)» He also filed a mandamus petition in the superior court seeking rulings on those motions, but the court dismissed the petition — because the court had ruled on the motions. «pet. at 28» This is the fourth petition for mandamus that Joe has filed in this court within the past six months. We have denied each of his previous petitions for mandamus seeking the same or substantially similar relief: Case No. A26E0065 (decided Sept. 18, 2025); Case No. A26E0090 (decided Nov. 17, 2025); Case No. A26E0142 (decided Feb. 9, 2026). Joe “could not have reasonably anticipated” that this court would grant mandamus relief on any ground alleged in the instant petition, given that we had denied relief on these or substantially similar grounds three times before. Murphy v. Murphy, 328 Ga. App. 767, 774(4) (759 SE2d 909) (2014). Joe is cautioned against filing future motions or pleadings in this court that have no substantial basis in law. Rule 7(e)(2) permits this court to levy penalties for frivolous appeals, applications, or motions against a party or his counsel (including pro se litigants pursuant to Rule 2(d)) with a penalty of up to $10,000.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 03/16/2026 I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Murphy v. Murphy
759 S.E.2d 909 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Allan Joe v. Latisha Dear Jackson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allan-joe-v-latisha-dear-jackson-gactapp-2026.