Case Title: Karon D. Trotter, Jr. v. Honorable Don Glover, Circuit Judge

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 2007-12-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT No. 07­975 KARON D. TROTTER, JR. Petitioner v. HON. DON GLOVER, CIRCUIT JUDGE Respondent Opinion Delivered December 13, 2007 PRO SE MOTION TO REINSTATE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS [CIRCUIT COURT OF DREW COUNTY, CV 2005­56] MOTION DENIED. PER CURIAM In 2005, the State of Arkansas filed in the Circuit Court of Drew County a civil complaint seeking forfeiture of certain monies pursuant to a judgment obtained against petitioner Karon D. Trotter, Jr. On July 27, 2007, petitioner filed a motion seeking an order from the court returning any funds remaining after the judgment was satisfied. On September 20, 2007, petitioner Trotter filed a pro se petition for writ ofmandamus in this court, contending that the Honorable Don Glover had failed to act on the motion in a timely manner. On October 1, 2007, the court entered an order holding that any remaining money in the bank accounts used to satisfy the judgment was payable to petitioner or his authorized designee. On October 12, 2007, petitioner filed an amendment to the mandamus petition, taking issue with the circuit court’s decision on the motion and challenging the circuit court’s jurisdiction in the matter. As the circuit court had entered a ruling on petitioner’s motion, we declared the mandamus petition ­2­ to be moot. As to the claims raised in the amendment to the mandamus petition, we said that if petitioner wished to challenge the order, his remedywas an appeal from the order, not an amendment to the mandamus action in this court. Trotter v. Glover, 07­975 (Ark. Nov. 8, 2007) (per curiam). Now before us is petitioner’s motion asking that the mandamus action be reinstated on the grounds that the circuit court’s order was inadequate to cover the matters at issue, that there are still questions to be decided in circuit court, that he was not afforded an opportunity to present new arguments in support of the mandamus action before it was declared moot and that his pleadings to this court have been mishandled by our staff. He argues that he should not be required to expend time and money appealing from the circuit court’s order when mandamus will lie to compel the court to consider the additional issues that he alleges are pending and to correct the errors in the court’s order. The motion to reinstate the mandamus action is denied. It is clear that petitioner has misconstrued the scope of a mandamus proceeding as a remedy and has stated no good cause to reinstate the action. Motion denied.