NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and official text of the opinion.
In the Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided: March 18, 2025
S24O1335. ARNOLD v. ALEXANDER, CLERK.
BOGGS, Chief Justice.
Petitioner Deandre Arnold filed a petition in this Court seeking
a writ of mandamus against Ché Alexander, the Clerk of the Fulton
County Superior Court, alleging that the Clerk has subjected
Petitioner, as an indigent pro se litigant, to a Catch-22 situation that
unlawfully prevents him from filing any civil complaint. For the
reasons explained below, we conclude that, except in very limited
circumstances not present here, we lack original jurisdiction to
grant the sort of relief Petitioner seeks and that the case does not
fall within our appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, we transfer the
original petition to the Court of Appeals for resolution.
In his verified original petition, Petitioner alleges that he
attempted to file a civil complaint, accompanied by an affidavit of
indigence, through the Fulton County Superior Court’s e-filing
system, which is mandatory even for pro se filers unless they are
incarcerated. However, the complaint was rejected because it was
not accompanied by an order authorizing him to file “using a waiver
payment account.” Petitioner called the Clerk’s office and was told
that any person seeking to file a complaint accompanied by an
affidavit of indigence must first obtain an order authorizing indigent
status. He was also advised that to obtain such an order, he had to
present the complaint in person and be sworn before a superior court
judge, who would either grant or deny the request for indigent
status. Finally, he was told that the Clerk would not accept the filing
by mail. Petitioner represents that he is unable to drive or to walk
the 25 miles from his home to the Clerk’s office and that there is no
private party available to transport him. He asserts that the Clerk’s
policy of not accepting complaints accompanied by an affidavit of
indigence is contrary to OCGA § 9-15-2, which sets forth procedures
for a party to present an affidavit as to the party’s indigence in lieu
2
of payment of costs.1 He also asserts that the Clerk’s policy violates
the Clerk’s ministerial duty to file papers and that the policy violates
1 OCGA § 9-15-2 provides, in full:
(a)(1) When any party, plaintiff or defendant, in any action or
proceeding held in any court in this state is unable to pay any
deposit, fee, or other cost which is normally required in the court,
if the party shall subscribe an affidavit to the effect that because
of his indigence he is unable to pay the costs, the party shall be
relieved from paying the costs and his rights shall be the same as
if he had paid the costs.
(2) Any other party at interest or his agent or attorney may contest
the truth of an affidavit of indigence by verifying affirmatively
under oath that the same is untrue. The issue thereby formed shall
be heard and determined by the court, under the rules of the court.
The judgment of the court on all issues of fact concerning the
ability of a party to pay costs or give bond shall be final.
(b) In the absence of a traverse affidavit contesting the truth of an
affidavit of indigence, the court may inquire into the truth of the
affidavit of indigence. After a hearing, the court may order the
costs to be paid if it finds that the deposit, fee, or other costs can
be paid and, if the costs are not paid within the time permitted in
such order, may deny the relief sought.
(c) The adjudication of the issue of indigence shall not affect a
decision on the merits of the pending action.
(d) When a civil action is presented for filing under this Code
section by a party who is not represented by an attorney, the clerk
of court shall not file the matter but shall present the complaint or
other initial pleading to a judge of the court. The judge shall 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. If the
judge does not so find, then the judge shall enter an order allowing
filing and shall return the pleading to the clerk for filing as in other
cases. An order denying filing shall be appealable in the same
manner as an order dismissing an action.
3
his federal constitutional rights to equal protection, due process, and
access to the courts. He also contends he has no adequate remedy
other than filing an original petition in this Court because if he
attempted to file a mandamus petition in superior court, he would
run into the exact same difficulty because he cannot appear in
person to present a writ of mandamus and affidavit of indigence and
the Clerk would not accept such a filing by mail. He seeks an order
from this Court directing the Clerk and her staff to accept all filings
accompanied by an affidavit of indigence and to present such filings
to a judge.
1. It is well established that this Court has a “duty to inquire
into [its] jurisdiction in any case in which there may be a doubt about
the existence of such jurisdiction.” State of Ga. v. Fed. Defender
Program, Inc., 315 Ga. 319, 324 (882 SE2d 257) (2022) (cleaned up).2
Here, it appears that Petitioner is asserting that this Court has
jurisdiction to consider his original petition under Article VI, Section
2 We asked the parties and interested amici to address the question of
this Court’s jurisdiction, and we thank the parties for their supplemental briefs
and the Attorney General for his helpful amicus brief.
4
I, Paragraph IV of the 1983 Constitution (“Paragraph IV”). “When
we inquire into the meaning of a constitutional provision, we look to
its text, and our object is to ascertain the meaning of the text at the
time it was adopted.” Lathrop v. Deal, 301 Ga. 408, 428 (801 SE2d
867) (2017) (cleaned up). We “view the text in the context in which
it appears, and read the text in its most natural and reasonable way,
as an ordinary speaker of the English language would.” Id. at 429
(cleaned up). “In so doing, we typically refer to the rules of English
grammar, inasmuch as those rules are the guideposts by which
ordinary speakers of the English language commonly structure their
words.” Walton Electric Membership Corp. v. Georgia Power Co., ___
Ga. ___ ( ___ SE2d ___ ) (Jan. 28, 2025) (S24G0314, S24G0318)
(cleaned up). Additionally, “for relevant context, we may look to,
among other things, the other law—constitutional, statutory, and
common law alike—that formed the legal background of the
constitutional provision in question at the time of its adoption.”
Lathrop, 301 Ga. at 429 (cleaned up).
Although Petitioner references the “original jurisdiction” of
5
this Court,3 the term “original jurisdiction” does not appear in our
current Constitution. However, shortly after the ratification of the
1983 Constitution, we used the phrase “original jurisdiction” in
Brown v. Johnson, 251 Ga. 436, 436 (306 SE2d 655) (1983), and
suggested that Paragraph IV authorized this Court to grant a writ
of mandamus to a superior court judge as an exercise of “original
jurisdiction.” Since Brown, we have on occasion in published
opinions dismissing similar original petitions referred to our
“original jurisdiction.” See, e.g., Gay v. Owens 292 Ga. 480, 483 (738
SE2d 614) (2013); Graham v. Cavender, 252 Ga. 123, 123 (311 SE2d
832) (1984). But we have not addressed the scope of the “powers”
granted in Paragraph IV. And while we and the Court of Appeals
have both used the phrase “original jurisdiction” in published
opinions since 1983, we have not expressly held that the
3 In his jurisdictional statement, Petitioner also relies on OCGA § 9-6-24, which provides, “Where the question is one of public right and the object is
to procure the enforcement of a public duty, no legal or special interest need be
shown, but it shall be sufficient that a plaintiff is interested in having the laws executed and the duty in question enforced.” However, that statute addresses
the standing of a party to seek relief, see, e.g., Williams v. DeKalb County, 308
Ga. 265, 272 (840 SE2d 423) (2020), rather than a type of jurisdiction conferred
upon this Court.
6
Constitution of 1983 grants such jurisdiction.
As we noted in Brown, every constitution since the creation of
this Court, except the 1983 Constitution, expressly provided that
this Court “shall have no original jurisdiction.”4 From at least the
1800s, the term “original jurisdiction” has been understood as the
authority of a court to hear and decide a case from the beginning as
opposed to the appellate jurisdiction of a higher court to review a
4 See Ga. Const. of 1976, Art. VI, Sec. II, Par. IV; Ga. Const. of 1945, Art.
VI, Sec. VI, Par. IV; Ga. Const. of 1877, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. V; Ga. Const. of
1868, Art. V, § 742; Ga. Const. of 1865, Art. IV, Sec. I, § 4971; Ga. Const. of
1861, Art. IV, Sec. 3; Ga. Const. of 1798, as amended effective 1835, Art. III,
Sec. I (Acts 1835, Annual Session p. 49) (providing that the judicial powers of
the State “shall be vested in a supreme court”; that the Supreme Court shall
consist of three judges “who shall be elected by the legislature”; and that “said
court shall have no original jurisdiction”). In 1845, the legislature passed an
Act “to carry into effect that part . . . of the Constitution, which requires the
establishment of a Supreme Court.” See Ga. Acts, 1845, p. 18.
In determining what Paragraph IV means, we need not decide in this
opinion the effect of the removal of the express prohibition on original
jurisdiction given that Paragraph IV first appeared in the 1983 Constitution.
However, we note that some of the framers of the 1983 Constitution expressed
concerns that the no-original-jurisdiction provision of the 1976 Constitution
posed a potential obstacle to this Court’s exercise of its preexisting statutory
authority to grant writs of mandamus to force recalcitrant trial courts to send
up a record or to restrain trial courts from taking action while a case was on
appeal. See Transcripts of Mtgs., Select Committee to Revise Art. 1, Vol. 9 pgs.
202-203, 260, 279-282, 295 (Meetings 1977-1981).
7
judgment from a lower court. See Black’s Law Dictionary (1st ed.
1891) (defining original jurisdiction as “[j]urisdiction in the first
instance; jurisdiction to take cognizance of a cause at its inception,
try it, and pass judgment upon the law and facts. Distinguished from
appellate jurisdiction.” (emphasis in original)). An appellate court’s
issuance of a writ of mandamus that is not connected to a pending
or impending appeal is also considered an exercise of “original
jurisdiction.” See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 175-176 (2 LEd 60) (1803) (explaining that the issuance of a writ of
mandamus by that Court to the Secretary of State, which writ was
not necessary to enable the Court to exercise its appellate
jurisdiction, would be an exercise of the Court’s original
jurisdiction). However, an appellate court’s issuance of a writ of
mandamus in aid of its jurisdiction is an exercise of appellate
jurisdiction. See id. at 175.
So, with this background, the question is what are we to make
of the suggestion in Brown that Paragraph IV was a source of
“original jurisdiction.” Paragraph IV, which is captioned “Exercise
8
of Judicial Power,” provides:
Each court may exercise such powers as necessary in aid
of its jurisdiction or to protect or effectuate its judgments;
but only the superior and appellate courts and state-wide
business court shall have the power to issue process in the
nature of mandamus, prohibition, specific performance,
quo warranto, and injunction. Each superior court, state
court, and other courts of record and the state-wide
business court may grant new trials on legal grounds.5
The plain language of Paragraph IV does not mention “original
jurisdiction,” and the framers could have, but did not, include an
original jurisdiction provision in Paragraph IV or in any other
provision of the 1983 Constitution. Compare U. S. Const. Art. III,
Sec. II, Cl. II (granting United States Supreme Court “original
jurisdiction” over certain cases). But, as noted above, Paragraph IV,
which first appeared in the 1983 Constitution, authorizes every
court to exercise “such powers as necessary in aid of its jurisdiction
5 As originally ratified, Paragraph IV did not include the state-wide
business court. A 2018 amendment to the Constitution authorized the creation
of the state-wide business court, and Paragraph IV was also amended at that
time to grant the superior court “concurrent jurisdiction with the state-wide
business court in equity cases.” See Ga. L. 2018, pp. 1130, 1134, § 4 (ratified
Nov. 6, 2018). Paragraph IV has not otherwise been amended in any material
way.
9
or to protect or effectuate its judgments,” but authorizes only certain
courts, including this Court, “to issue process in the nature of
mandamus, prohibition, specific performance, quo warranto, and
injunction.” In construing this provision, we observe that the use of
the semicolon relates the first clause to the second. See Springtime,
Inc. v. Douglas County, 228 Ga. 753, 755 (187 SE2d 874) (1972) (“The
semicolon is normally employed in marking off a series of sentences
or clauses of coordinate value, that is, to separate consecutive
phrases or clauses which are independent of each other
grammatically, but dependent alike on some word preceding or
following.”). Here, the first clause references “powers” that each
court may exercise and the second clause refers to “the power to
issue process” and describes the nature of that power as
“mandamus, prohibition, specific performance, quo warranto, and
injunction.” Therefore, the exercise of Paragraph IV’s grant of
authority to issue writs of mandamus is connected only to “such
powers as necessary in aid of its jurisdiction or to protect or
effectuate its judgments.” It does not grant jurisdiction to this Court
10
to issue process as an original matter wholly unconnected to its
appellate jurisdiction.
Moreover, the authority granted in Paragraph IV mirrors the
power this Court has had by statute since its creation to issue writs
of mandamus to lower courts in limited circumstances. See, e.g.,
OCGA § 15-2-8 (3) (stating that the Supreme Court has authority
“[t]o grant any writ necessary to carry out any purpose of its
organization or to compel any inferior tribunal or officers thereof to
obey its order”); Ga. Code Ann. 1933, § 24-3901 (3) (stating that
Supreme Court has authority to issue writs necessary to purposes of
organization); Ga. Code Ann. 1860, Part I, Title V, Chapter II, § 211
(3) (authorizing this Court to “grant any writ necessary to carry out
any purpose of its organization, or to compel any inferior tribunal,
or officer thereof, to obey its order”); Ga. Laws 1845, p. 21-22
(allowing this Court to issue a writ of mandamus to a superior court
judge who refuses to certify a bill of exceptions, to a clerk of court
who fails to transmit the record in a case, or to a sheriff who fails to
perform any duty imposed under the Act). This Court has exercised
11
the power granted in these statutory provisions in the context of an
ongoing or impending appeal. See, e.g., McLendon v. Anderson, 207
Ga. 243, 243 (60 SE2d 762) (1950) (granting application for writ of
mandamus to compel trial judge to enter an order of supersedeas as
to the sentence of execution upon the filing of the bill of exceptions
where execution date would render appeal moot); Sears v. Candler,
112 Ga. 381, 382 (37 SE 442) (1900) (granting application for writ of
mandamus to compel trial judge to certify a bill of exceptions);
Taylor v. Reese, 108 Ga. 379, 383 (33 SE 917) (1899) (same).
However, we have not found any case in which we have held that
the power to grant a writ of mandamus to a lower court authorized
this Court to exercise original jurisdiction as that term is generally
understood. See generally Vanderford v. Brand, 126 Ga. 67, 68 (54
SE 822) (1906) (quoting the express constitutional prohibition on the
exercise of original jurisdiction by this Court and explaining that
this Court’s power to issue writs of mandamus to lower courts in
connection with pending or impending appeals is “ancillary” to this
Court’s appellate jurisdiction and not an exercise of original
12
jurisdiction).
Finally, an additional important context to consider is that
Paragraph IV appears in the constitutional provision addressing
“Judicial Power” generally. It does not appear in Article VI, Section
VI, Paragraphs II and III of the 1983 Georgia Constitution, which
are the constitutional provisions that specifically grant this Court
“appellate jurisdiction.” Those provisions provide that this Court
“shall be a court of review” that exercises “exclusive appellate
jurisdiction” in specified cases and non-exclusive “appellate
jurisdiction” in other categories of cases. Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI,
Sec. VI, Par. II and III.
Accordingly, we conclude that the best reading of the plain
language of Paragraph IV, viewed in context, authorizes this Court
and the Court of Appeals to grant a writ of mandamus only in
matters related to an appeal or impending appeal, when necessary
in aid of appellate jurisdiction or to protect or effectuate appellate
13
court judgments.6 A different reading of Paragraph IV as
authorizing this Court to have “original jurisdiction” to issue writs
of mandamus unrelated to an appellate matter would be contrary to
the plain language of that provision. See Camden County v. Sweatt,
315 Ga. 498, 509 (883 SE2d 827) (2023) (in construing a
constitutional provision, we give the “text its plain and ordinary
meaning, view the text in the context in which it appears, and read
the text in its most natural and reasonable way, as an ordinary
speaker of the English language would” (cleaned up)). See also
TDGA, LLC v. CBIRA, LLC, 298 Ga. 510, 511-512 (783 SE2d 107)
(2016) (in construing constitutional provisions, “courts are not
authorized either to read into or read out that which would add to
or change its meaning” (cleaned up)). To the extent that Brown, 251
6 As we correctly explained in Brown, 251 Ga. at 436-437, it will be an
“extremely rare” circumstance that would require a party to seek a writ of
mandamus in this Court in the first instance, given that superior court judges
have the power to issue process in the nature of mandamus against other
superior court judges or trial court officials. Moreover, when a superior court
judge enters an order on a petition for writ of mandamus, the appeal should
generally be directed to the Court of Appeals because, as explained in Division
2, it has appellate jurisdiction over most cases involving extraordinary
remedies. See OCGA § 15-3-3.1 (a) (4).
14
Ga. at 436, and its progeny can be read as holding that Paragraph
IV grants this Court or the Court of Appeals original jurisdiction to
grant a writ of mandamus or prohibition unconnected to the
appellate jurisdiction of the respective courts, those cases are hereby
disapproved. 7
2. Because we lack jurisdiction to grant the original relief
Petitioner seeks, the next question to consider is whether this Court
is even the proper appellate court to consider the exercise of
authority under Paragraph IV over Petitioner’s claim for relief.8 The
7 See, e.g., Henderson v. State, 303 Ga. 241, 245 (811 SE2d 388) (2018);
Gay, 292 Ga. at 483; Clark v. Hunstein, 291 Ga. 646, 647-648 (733 SE2d 259)
(2012); Hackney v. Wharton, 259 Ga. 492 (386 SE2d 660) (1989); Graham, 252
Ga. at 123-124; Carey Canada, Inc. v. Head, 252 Ga. 23, 23 (310 SE2d 895)
(1984); Byrd v. Robinson, 349 Ga. App. 19, 20-21 (825 SE2d 424) (2019); Byrd
v. Glanville, 345 Ga. App. 426, 426-427 (813 SE2d 776) (2018); Expedia, Inc. v.
City of Columbus, 305 Ga. App. 450, 455 (699 SE2d 600) (2010).
8 Since Brown, 251 Ga. at 436, this Court and the Court of Appeals have
typically dismissed petitions for writ of mandamus for failure to follow the
procedure outlined in Brown. See, e.g., Gay, 292 Ga. at 482-483; Byrd v.
Robinson, 349 Ga. App. 19, 21 (825 SE2d 424) (2019). The Court of Appeals
has, on occasion, transferred such petitions to this Court, but we have
generally returned them to the Court of Appeals. See, e.g., Ricks v. Smith,
Clerk, Case No. S17O0637 (Dec. 12, 2016) (returning original petition to the
Court of Appeals after it had transferred the petition to this Court and stating
that “both appellate courts have original jurisdiction to issue mandamus”
pursuant to Paragraph IV).
15
authority that Paragraph IV gives us to grant a writ of mandamus
when necessary in aid of our appellate jurisdiction or to effectuate
our judgments must necessarily relate to one of the categories of
cases over which we have appellate jurisdiction. We have “exclusive
appellate jurisdiction” over election contests, cases involving the
construction of a treaty or the United States or Georgia
Constitution, and cases in which certain constitutional questions are
presented. See Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. II. We also
have appellate jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases, cases certified
by the Court of Appeals, all cases “in which a sentence of death was
imposed or could be imposed,” and all equity cases and cases
involving extraordinary remedies related to cases in which a
sentence of death was or could be imposed. Ga. Const. of 1983, Art.
VI, Sec. VI, Par. III; OCGA § 15-3-3.1 (a) (2), (4).9
9 We also have jurisdiction to answer questions of law from any state
appellate court or any federal district or appellate court and over cases from
the Court of Appeals in certain situations. See Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec.
VI, Par. IV and V; Art. VI, Sec. V, Par. IV and V. And we have “power” “to
perform any function reasonably necessary to effectuate [our] jurisdiction,
improve the administration of justice, and protect the judiciary as an
16
Petitioner has not included with his petition a copy of the civil
complaint he sought to file below and has not described the nature
of the action he sought to file. Given that this Court has appellate
jurisdiction over only a small subset of all civil cases, we cannot
presume that the case he seeks to file would invoke this Court’s
appellate jurisdiction. See Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI. Par.
II and III; OCGA § 15-3-3.1. Thus, Petitioner has not shown that any
final judgment in that case would invoke the appellate jurisdiction
of this Court.10
independent department of the government.” Wallace v. Wallace, 225 Ga. 102,
111 (166 SE2d 718) (1969). Our resolution of this matter is limited to the
question of our jurisdiction to grant the relief the Petitioner seeks and should
not be read as affecting other sources of our jurisdiction and power. See
Schoicket v. State, 312 Ga. 825, 832 (865 SE2d 170) (2021) (“It is, of course,
axiomatic that a decision’s holding is limited to the factual context of the case
being decided and the issues that context necessarily raises.”).
10 Prior to the enactment of the Appellate Jurisdiction Reform Act of 2016
(“the Act”), Ga. L. 2016, p. 884 § 1-1, this Court had appellate jurisdiction over cases involving extraordinary remedies, which include writs of mandamus,
prohibition, and quo warranto. See Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III;
OCGA § 9-6-1 et seq. However, the Act placed appellate jurisdiction over most
cases involving extraordinary remedies in the Court of Appeals beginning in
2017. Ga. L. 2016, p. 885-886 § 3-1; OCGA § 15-3-3.1 (a) (4). Although this
change in appellate jurisdiction became effective in 2017, we have not
previously grappled with how that jurisdictional shift impacted the power in
Paragraph IV to grant writs of mandamus in aid of appellate jurisdiction.
17
Where we lack jurisdiction over a civil case, we are bound to
transfer the case to the appropriate court that has jurisdiction. Ga.
Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. I, Par. VIII (“Any court shall transfer to
the appropriate court in the state any civil case in which it
determines that jurisdiction or venue lies elsewhere.”). And the
Court of Appeals has appellate jurisdiction over cases not reserved
to this Court, see Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. V, Par. IV and V,
as well as the authority under Paragraph IV to grant writs of
mandamus in aid of its jurisdiction.
Accordingly, we transfer this original petition to the Court of
Appeals. We leave to that court the question of whether it is
appropriate to issue a writ of mandamus in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction to require the Clerk to accept by mail Petitioner’s
affidavit of indigence and civil complaint and present the same to a
superior court judge. See OCGA § 9-15-2 (b), (d).
Transferred to the Court of Appeals. All the Justices concur.
18