KALISHA HUGGINS v. CELEST BRADLEY

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedAugust 15, 2025
DocketA26E0021
StatusPublished

This text of KALISHA HUGGINS v. CELEST BRADLEY (KALISHA HUGGINS v. CELEST BRADLEY) 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
KALISHA HUGGINS v. CELEST BRADLEY, (Ga. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ August 15, 2025

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A26E0021. KALISHA HUGGINS v. CELEST BRADLEY et al.

Kalisha Huggins filed a pro se petition in the Supreme Court, which ascertained no basis for its jurisdiction and transferred the matter to this Court. See Case No. S25O1334 (Aug. 12, 2025). Huggins’s filing is titled “Petition of Natural Guardian(s) to Terminate Temporary Guardianship of Minor.” The filing refers to the Probate Court of Henry County, but there is no indication that the probate court has ruled on the petition. Thus, to the extent Huggins is seeking review of a probate court ruling, the filing presents nothing for us to review.1 Alternatively, to the extent Huggins is asking this Court to terminate the guardianship, we are not authorized to grant such relief. Georgia’s appellate courts have jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus or prohibition, but as our Supreme Court recently explained, “it will be an ‘extremely rare’ circumstance that would require a party to seek a writ of mandamus in [an appellate court] in the first instance[.]”2 Indeed, we are authorized to issue such relief “only in matters related to an appeal or

1 See Amica v. State, 307 Ga. App. 276, 282 (2) (704 SE2d 831) (2010) (“This Court is an appellate court for the correction of errors of law made by the trial court, which have as their bases specific rulings made by the trial court.”) (citation and punctuation omitted); See Titleman v. Stedman, 277 Ga. 460, 461 (591 SE2d 774) (2003) (a court’s ruling is not subject to appellate review until it is reduced to writing, signed by the judge, and filed by the clerk). 2 Arnold v. Alexander, 321 Ga. 330, 335 (1) n.6 (914 SE2d 311) (2025). impending appeal, when necessary in aid of appellate jurisdiction or to protect or effectuate appellate court judgments.”3 The present case is not one of those extremely rare circumstances. Accordingly, this petition is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 08/15/2025 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.

3 Id. at 1.

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

Related

Titelman v. Stedman
591 S.E.2d 774 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2003)
Amica v. State
704 S.E.2d 831 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2010)
Arnold v. Alexander
914 S.E.2d 311 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2025)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
KALISHA HUGGINS v. CELEST BRADLEY, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kalisha-huggins-v-celest-bradley-gactapp-2025.