Daniel Eric Cobble v. Stanley Williams, Warden

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

January 18, 2013 ATLANTA,__________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A13A0415. DANIEL ERIC COBBLE v. STANLEY W ILLIAMS et al.

Prison inmate Daniel Eric Cobble sought to file an in forma pauperis civil

action in superior court. That court denied the filing on the ground that the proposed

complaint showed a complete absence of any justiciable issue of law or fact. Cobble

filed an application for discretionary appeal in the Supreme Court, which subsequently

transferred the application here. We docketed it as A13D0013 and denied it.

Cobble also filed a notice of appeal from the superior court’s order, indicating

his desire to appeal to both this Court and the Supreme Court. The direct appeal was

docketed in the Supreme Court, which – again – transferred it here. That appeal is

now before us. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

Because Cobble 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, the party wishing to appeal must file an application for

discretionary appeal to the appropriate appellate court. Because a prisoner has no

right of direct appeal in civil cases, we lack jurisdiction to consider this direct appeal from the superior court’s order. See Jones v. Townsend, 267 Ga. 489 (480 SE2d 24)

(1997). This appeal is therefore DISMISSED.1

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia 01/18/2013 Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,__________________ 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.

1 Although we have already reviewed this case in connection with Cobble’s discretionary application, we took the opportunity to examine the full record – including Cobble’s proposed complaint – that was transmitted from the superior court with the direct appeal. That examination has confirmed that our previous denial of A13D0013 was the correct decision.