Wayne Fox v. Aaron Pinero

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedOctober 24, 2024
DocketA25A0524
StatusPublished

This text of Wayne Fox v. Aaron Pinero (Wayne Fox v. Aaron Pinero) 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
Wayne Fox v. Aaron Pinero, (Ga. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ October 24, 2024

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A25A0524. WAYNE FOX v. AARON PINERO.

The trial court denied Wayne Fox’s request to proceed in forma pauperis in a mandamus action concerning a habeas corpus proceeding. Fox then filed both this direct appeal and an application for discretionary appeal. We denied his discretionary application on the merits, see Case No. A25D0044 (Sept. 10, 2024), and the direct appeal has been docketed as the current case. We lack jurisdiction for two reasons. First, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, any appeal in a civil case that was initiated by a prisoner must come by discretionary application. See OCGA § 42-12-8; Jones v. Townsend, 267 Ga. 489, 490 (480 SE2d 24) (1997). Because Fox is incarcerated, he was required to comply with the discretionary appeal procedures in order to appeal the civil mandamus ruling. See Brock v. Hardman, 303 Ga. 729, 731 (2) (814 SE2d 736) (2018). However, we denied his application for discretionary review. See Case No. A25D0044 (Sept. 10, 2024). Second, our denial of Fox’s application renders the current appeal barred by the law of the case doctrine. See Ross v. State, 310 Ga. App. 326, 327 (713 SE2d 438) (2011) (“[A]ny issue that was raised and resolved in an earlier appeal is the law of the case and is binding on this Court[.]”) (citation and punctuation omitted); accord Hook v. Bergen, 286 Ga. App. 258, 261 (1) (649 SE2d 313) (2007) (a ruling on an application for discretionary appeal acts as res judicata in later proceedings). For the above reasons, this direct appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 10/24/2024 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

Jones v. Townsend
480 S.E.2d 24 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1997)
Ross v. State
713 S.E.2d 438 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2011)
Brock v. Hardman
814 S.E.2d 736 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2018)
Hook v. Bergen
649 S.E.2d 313 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2007)
Brock v. Hardman
303 Ga. 729 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Wayne Fox v. Aaron Pinero, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wayne-fox-v-aaron-pinero-gactapp-2024.