 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gamble v. Ware Coiunty Board of Education2/19/2002
Proceeding pro se, George Gamble presented to the Ware County Superior Court clerk eleven lawsuits naming the Ware County Board of Education and various school officials and employees as defendants.
Gamble included a pauper's affidavit with each complaint stating that he could not pay the court filing fees. Pursuant to OCGA § 9-15-2 (d), the court clerk submitted the complaints to the trial court for review before filing them. Concluding that the complaints contained no justiciable issue of law or fact, the trial court refused to permit their filing. Gamble now appeals. Although not all of these appeals are factually related, the same legal principles generally govern their disposition. Accordingly, we have consolidated them for appeal, and for reasons that follow, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
Under OCGA § 9-15-2 (d),
hen a civil action is instituted by an indigent party who is not represented by an attorney the trial judge is required to review the pleading and, if the judge determines that the pleading shows on its face such a complete absence of any justiciable issue of law or fact that it cannot be reasonably believed that the court could grant any relief against any party named in the pleading, then the judge shall enter an order denying filing of the pleading.
In conducting this review, the trial court must determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint state a claim for relief under which the plaintiff may recover. The court can deny filing " nly if the pleading is completely devoid of any justiciable issue of law or fact." A complaint is sufficient if it places the defendant on notice of the claim against him, and on appeal, we must construe Gamble's complaints favorably to him. Furthermore, we will not hold his pro se complaints to the "strict standards of formal pleading."
Applying these principles, we find no error in the trial court's order prohibiting Gamble from filing the complaints in Appeal Nos. A01A2201, A01A2228, A01A2229, A01A2464, A01A2465, A01A2466, A01A2468, and The trial court, however, should have permitted Gamble to file the complaints involved in Appeal Nos. A01A2202, A01A2230, and
1. As an initial matter, the defendants named in Gamble's complaints have filed a motion to dismiss these appeals or, in the alternative, have requested that we order Gamble to serve his appellate briefs on them. They argue that because Gamble failed to serve them with the complaints or any other pleadings, we should not consider his appeals. We disagree.
Because the trial court did not permit Gamble to file his complaints, suit has not begun, and these named defendants are not yet parties. The complaints were not filed, the clerk never issued summons, and process was not served. In short, the trial court halted the lawsuits before they started, and nothing obligated Gamble to serve the complaints on the defendants. Similarly, Gamble was not required to serve his notice of appeal on the defendants, who were never parties below, and thus are not parties on appeal. Also, we cannot find that Gamble violated the rules of this Court by failing to serve his appellate briefs on these non-parties. Although the better practice in this type of appeal would be to serve the named defendants, the failure to do so does not warrant dismissal. The defendants' motion, therefore, is denied.
Appeal Nos. A01A2201, A01A2202, A01A2228, A01A2229, and A01A2230
These five appeals arise out of a November 12, 1999 school bus incident involving Gamble's son. As alleged in the complaints and attached documents, on that date, bus monitor Essie Mae Hands prepared a conduct form stating that K.G.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Georgia Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|