Opinion
A22A1514
06-17-2022
EDWARD TYRONE RIDLEY v. KARL FORT, et al.
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
Edward Tyrone Ridley filed this pro se civil action against several officials at the Washington State Prison, asserting that they had placed illegal limits on his ability to send out mail and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to remedy the situation. After no summonses were issued, Ridley filed a motion seeking an order requiring the Clerk of the Washington County Superior Court to prepare and issue summonses so the lawsuit could be served. The trial court denied that motion, and Ridley now seeks to appeal the trial court's order. We, however, lack jurisdiction.
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, an appeal in a civil action filed by a prisoner must be initiated by filing an application for discretionary review. See OCGA § 42-12-8; OCGA § 5-6-35; Brock v. Hardman, 303 Ga. 729, 731 (2) (814 S.E.2d 736) (2018). "Compliance with the discretionary appeals procedure is jurisdictional." Hair Restoration Specialists v. State of Ga., 360 Ga.App. 901, 903 (862 S.E.2d 564) (2021) (punctuation omitted). Because Ridley was incarcerated when he filed this civil action, his failure to comply with the discretionary appeals procedure deprives us of jurisdiction over this direct appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED. See Brock, 303 Ga. at 731 (2).