O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 9-15-2 (2019)

Affidavit of indigence; procedure when filing party not represented by counsel

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(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.

(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.

History

(Ga. L. 1955, p. 584, §§ 1, 2; Ga. L. 1982, p. 933, § 1; Ga. L. 1983, p. 3, § 7; Ga. L. 1984, p. 22, § 9; Ga. L. 1985, p. 1256, § 1.)

Annotations

Cross references. - Filing of affidavit of indigence for renewal of action after dismissal or discontinuance, § 9-2-63. Editor’s notes. - Ga. L. 1985, p. 1256,

§ 2, not codified by the General Assembly, provided that that Act would apply to actions filed or presented for filing on or after July 1, 1985.

ANALYSIS GENERAL CONSIDERATION APPLICATION General Consideration JUDICIAL DECISIONS Constitutionality. - Since there is no constitutional per se right to appeal, the defendant suffers no denial of due process because of the provision of O.C.G.A. § 9-15-2 that the trial court’s findings concerning a party’s ability to pay costs or post bond are not subject to review. Penland v. State, 256 Ga. 641, 352 S.E.2d 385 (1987). When the defendant did not claim that the defendant was being treated differently from other individuals similarly situated in regard to the provisions of O.C.G.A. § 9-15-2, i.e., that findings of the court concerning the ability of a party to pay costs shall be final, there was no merit to the defendant’s claim that the defendant was suffering discrimination because the defendant was indigent. Penland v. State, 256 Ga. 641, 352 S.E.2d 385 (1987). O.C.G.A. § 9-15-2 does not relieve an indigent inmate from paying costs required under O.C.G.A. §§ 9-15-1 and

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 194 cases (24 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Roberson v. State, 797 S.E.2d 104 (Ga. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Roberson v. State, 797 S.E.2d 104 (Ga. 2017). · cites it 18× “Wishing to appeal her conviction, Roberson filed a motion seeking a transcript without charge as an indigent defendant under OCGA § 9-15-2. The trial court held a hearing, but denied her motion.”

Arnold v. Alexander, 914 S.E.2d 311 (Ga. 2025). · cites it 12× “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.”

Boyd v. JohnGalt Holdings, LLC, 736 S.E.2d 459 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 22× “Sixteen days later, andpursuantto OCGA § 9-15-2 (a) (1), the Boyds each filed affidavits of indigence stating, “I wish to appeal from an adverse decision in this matter, but because of my poverty I am unable to pay costs or post any bond.”

Fullwood v. Sivley, 517 S.E.2d 511 (Ga. 1999). · cites it 16× “On February 17, 1998, the habeas court, citing OCGA § 9-15-2, denied filing of the petition on the ground that venue was not proper in Crisp County.”

D'zesati v. Poole, 329 S.E.2d 280 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 24× “The trial court's ruling on all issues of fact concerning the ability of a party to pay costs is final, OCGA § 9-15-2, and not subject to review.”

Hicks v. Scott, 541 S.E.2d 27 (Ga. 2001). · cites it 12× “The habeas court entered an order denying filing of the habeas petition under OCGA § 9-15-2 (d), stating that because petitioner is a federal prisoner seeking to sue federal prison authorities, his petition was without any justiciable issue of law or fact from which the…”

Gamble v. Ware Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 561 S.E.2d 837 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 14× “Pursuant to OCGA § 9-15-2 (d), the court clerk submitted the complaints to the trial court for review before filing them.”

Graham v. Newsome, 330 S.E.2d 98 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 32× “OCGA § 9-15-2 sets out the procedure by which one may be relieved from paying court costs.”

Penland v. State, 352 S.E.2d 385 (Ga. 1987). · cites it 12× “The case was transferred by the Court of Appeals to this court because of appellant’s constitutional attack upon OCGA § 9-15-2 (a) (2). The dispositive issue in this case is whether the provision of OCGA § 9-15-2 (a) (2) which provides that “[t]he judgment of the court on all…”

ALLEN v. DAKER (& Vice Versa), 858 S.E.2d 731 (Ga. 2021). · cites it 4× “We note that trial courts retain the authority under OCGA § 9-15-2 to decide if criminal defendants are indigent for the purpose of paying the costs of an appeal.”

Jones v. Townsend, 480 S.E.2d 24 (Ga. 1997). · cites it 4× “When the trial court denied filing of the petition pursuant to OCGA § 9-15-2 (d), 1 Jones filed a direct appeal.”

Romano v. Georgia Dep't of Corr., 693 S.E.2d 521 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 8× “OCGA § 9-15-2 sets forth the conditions in which a plaintiff in a civil action may proceed in forma pauperis.”

Show all 194 citing cases →

— 9-15-2(a)(1) — 2 cases

Michelle Guerra v. Donna Lewis (Ga. Ct. App. 2026).

Zep, Inc. v. Yolanda Devost, as Duly Appointed Rep. of the Est. of Clarence Glenn (Ga. Ct. App. 2026).

— 9-15-2(a)(2) — 1 case

Hawkins v. State, 474 S.E.2d 666 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996).

— 9-15-2(a)(l) — 2 cases

Jayko v. the State, 782 S.E.2d 788 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016).

Yasund Q. Hancock v. Brent Cape, 875 F.3d 1079 (11th Cir. 2017).

— 9-15-2(b) — 2 cases

Heath v. McGuire, 306 S.E.2d 741 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983).

Zep, Inc. v. Yolanda Devost, as Duly Appointed Rep. of the Est. of Clarence Glenn (Ga. Ct. App. 2026).

— 9-15-2(d) — 9 cases

Hicks v. Scott, 541 S.E.2d 27 (Ga. 2001). “The habeas court entered an order denying filing of the habeas petition under OCGA § 9-15-2 (d), stating that because petitioner is a federal prisoner seeking to sue federal prison authorities, his petition was without any justiciable issue of law or fact from which the…”

Howard v. Sharpe, 470 S.E.2d 678 (Ga. 1996).

In Re Lawsuits of Carter, 510 S.E.2d 91 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998).

Ellison v. Upton (M.D. Ga. 2020).

Moore v. City of Statesboro Et Al., 796 S.E.2d 10 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.