Hodges, Judge. In this personal injury action, Wayne McCloud sued the Lowndes County Board of Commissioners and Eddie Smith (collectively, “the defendants”) after McCloud was injured in a vehicle collision while Smith was directing traffic in a road construction area. The Superior Court of Lowndes County granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, summarily finding that Lowndes County is entitled to sovereign immunity and that Smith is entitled to official immunity. McCloud appeals the trial court’s order as to Smith only, arguing that the court erred in making findings of fact, applying an incorrect standard of review, and concluding that Smith is entitled to official immunity. For the following reasons, we vacate the trial court’s order dismissing McCloud’s complaint against Smith with prejudice and remand this case for further proceedings. “On appeal, we review de novo a trial court’s grant of a motion to dismiss due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We also construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party with any doubts resolved in that party’s favor.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Douglas County v. Hamilton State Bank, 340 Ga. App. 801, 801-802 (798 SE2d 509) (2017). So viewed, the limited allegations in this case demonstrate[1] that McCloud was driving southbound on Old Clyattville Road in Valdosta, Georgia on May 23, 2018. McCloud approached a road construction area where Smith, a Lowndes County employee, was directing traffic through a lane closure using a “standing slow and stop sign.” As Smith positioned the sign to direct McCloud through the construction area, Smith also directed a tractor-trailer to enter the road from a private driveway. As a result, the tractor-trailer struck McCloud, injuring him.[2] In response to McCloud’s complaint, the defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss, asserting that McCloud’s claims against Lowndes County were barred by sovereign immunity and his claims against Smith were precluded by official immunity. The trial court summarily granted Smith’s motion, concluding that Smith “is entitled to official immunity for the reason that he was engaged in his official discretionary duties at the time of the matters complained of” in McCloud’s complaint.[3] The trial court granted McCloud a certificate of immediate review, we granted his application for interlocutory appeal, and this appeal follows. 1. McCloud first contends that the trial court erred in applying the wrong standard of review when deciding the defendants’ motion to dismiss. In essence, McCloud argues that the trial court made factual findings to support its ruling,[4] which is both consistent with and necessary for resolving a motion to dismiss under OCGA § 9-11-12 (b) (1), rather than applying the standards for an OCGA § 9-11-12 (b) (6) motion to dismiss.[5] Because the trial court’s order lacks any meaningful analysis to support dismissal, we are unable to determine whether the trial court applied OCGA § 9-11-12 (b) (1) or OCGA § 9-11-12 (b) (6), much less whether it properly applied the two differing standards. Therefore, we vacate the trial court’s order granting Smith’s motion to dismiss and remand this case for clarification of the trial court’s order. As an initial matter, Smith raised the defense of official immunity in his answer. Under the Georgia Constitution, [e]xcept as specifically provided by the General Assembly in a State Tort Claims Act, all officers and employees of the state or its departments and agencies may be subject to suit and may be liable for injuries and damages caused by the negligent performance of, or negligent failure to perform, their ministerial functions and may be liable for injuries and damages if they act with actual malice or with actual intent to cause injury in the performance of their official functions. Except as provided in this subparagraph, officers and employees of the state or its departments and agencies shall not be subject to suit or liability, and no judgment shall be entered against them, for the performance or nonperformance of their official functions. Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. I, Sec. II, Par. IX (d); see also Siegrist v. Herhold, 365 Ga. App. 828, 830 (880 SE2d 336) (2022). Importantly, official immunity “shall not be waived.” Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. I, Sec. II, Par. IX (d). Therefore, our courts have observed that official immunity “is an entitlement not to stand trial rather than a mere defense to liability, and thus is a threshold issue that must be decided at the earliest practicable opportunity.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Siegrist, 365 Ga. App. at 830. Nevertheless, a review of Georgia precedent reveals that official immunity may be considered at multiple procedural stages. For example, we have reviewed a trial court’s order denying a defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, based upon official immunity, pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-12 (b) (1). See Siegrist, 365 Ga. App. at 828, 830.[6] In contrast, we have also considered official immunity defenses in the contexts of both OCGA § 9-11-12 (b) (6) motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim and motions for summary judgment under OCGA § 9-11-56. See Austin v. Clark, 294 Ga. 773, 773-774 (755 SE2d 796) (2014) (analyzing OCGA § 9-11-12 (b) (6) motion to dismiss based upon official immunity); Griffith v. Robinson, 366 Ga. App. 869, 871 (3) (884 SE2d 532) (2023) (evaluating official immunity defense asserted in summary judgment motion). Notably, in none of those cases have our courts voiced a prescribed procedural vehicle in which to advance an official immunity defense. This is not a mere academic lark. In fact, our Supreme Court highlighted the different standards for each motion in Considine v. Murphy, 297 Ga. 164, 167 (1) (773 SE2d 176) (2015) (“Considine II“), recognizing that “Austin involved a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, see OCGA § 91112 (b) (6), not a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, see OCGA § 91112 (b) (1), which was the type of dismissal motion the trial court granted in this case.” 297 Ga. at 167 (1), n. 2. First, for example, each of these motions has a different burden of proof. On the one hand, “[w]hen a defendant . . . bring[s] a 12 (b) (1) motion, the plaintiff bears the burden to establish that jurisdiction exists.” (Citation and punctuation omitted; emphasis supplied.) Douglas County, 340 Ga. App. at 801. Compare Considine v. Murphy, 327 Ga. App. 110, 111 (755 SE2d 556) (2014) (“Considine I“) (holding, in the context of sovereign immunity, “[a] motion to dismiss . . . is based upon the trial court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction, rather than the merits of the plaintiff’s claim” and that “the party seeking to benefit from the waiver of sovereign immunity has the burden of proof to establish waiver”) (citations and punctuation omitted), vacated in part on other grounds, Considine II, 297 Ga. at 170 (3). On the other hand, motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-12 (b) (6) and motions for summary judgment place the initial burden of proof on the defendant. See generally OCGA § 9-11-56; Austin, 294 Ga. at 774-775; Griffith, 366 Ga. App. at 871 (3) (“When a defendant moves for summary judgment on the basis of official immunity, he bears the burden of establishing that he was entitled to the protection of said immunity.”) (citation and punctuation omitted). Second, each category of motion views the need for evidence differently. For instance, “a defendant asserting an immunity defense may move to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under OCGA § 91112 (b) (1), on consideration of which, the trial court may hear evidence and make relevant factual findings to decide the threshold issue.” (Emphasis supplied.) Rivera v. Washington, 298 Ga. 770, 778 (784 SE2d 775) (2016). Similarly, motions for summary judgment contemplate the submission of evidence and shall be granted “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law[.]” OCGA § 9-11-56 (c). Conversely, only the pleadings — not evidence — are evaluated in a motion to dismiss pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-12 (b) (6). See Osprey Cove Real Estate v. Towerview Constr., 343 Ga. App. 436, 439 (1), n. 2 (808 SE2d 425) (2017) (noting that “it would have been improper for the trial court to consider . . . evidence when evaluating a motion to dismiss pursuant to OCGA § 91112 (b) (6)”).[7] Ultimately, it would be inappropriate to attempt to reconcile these disparate procedures here due to the lack of analysis in the trial court’s order and the poor state of the record on appeal. The trial court’s analysis is not clear from its order. Moreover, the record contains no evidence submitted by either McCloud or Smith, in the form of affidavits, deposition transcripts, or verified discovery responses, on the threshold question of official immunity.[8] Compare Dept. of Transp. v. Dupree, 256 Ga. App. 668, 671 (1) (570 SE2d 1) (2002) (“With the deposition and affidavit of their expert witness, the plaintiffs carried their burden of proof on a motion to dismiss under OCGA § 91112 (b) (1) by showing DOT’s malpractice.”), disapproved on other grounds, Dept. of Transp. v. Thompson, 354 Ga. App. 200, 207 (1), n. 6 (840 SE2d 679) (2020). Nor could we simply rely on McCloud’s unverified complaint to fill any gaps that may arise, depending upon the analysis the trial court applied. Cf. Tselios v. Sarsour, 341 Ga. App. 471, 475 (800 SE2d 636) (2017) (holding that “unsworn pleadings such as an unverified complaint do not constitute evidence and thus cannot be considered in addressing a motion for summary judgment” which, like a motion to dismiss pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-12 (b) (1), presents a matter of law). In sum, then, the trial court’s reasoning is unclear from its order, and the record contains no evidence that could potentially shed some analytical light on the order. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s order granting Smith’s motion to dismiss and remand this case to allow the trial court to clarify its resolution of Smith’s motion.[9] 2. In view of our decision in Division 1, we need not address McCloud’s remaining enumeration of error. Judgment vacated and case remanded. Mercier, C. J., and Miller, P. J., concur.
