Cite as 2017 Ark. 146

No. CV-16-907

KENNETH RAY PITTS

APPELLANT

V.

PATRICK S. DRUMMOND, APN; 

WILLIAM BENTON, HEALTH SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATOR; ROY GRIFFINS, 

DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HEALTH AND 

CORRECTIONAL PROGRAM; 

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTION 

APPELLEES

Opinion Delivered April 20, 2017

PRO SE MOTIONS FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND TO 

PROCEED WITHOUT COSTS 

[PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, 

NO. 60CV-50-6]

HONORABLE TIMOTHY DAVIS 

FOX, JUDGE

MOTION TO PROCEED WITHOUT 

COSTS MOOT; MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED 

IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART; 

PRO SE BRIEF DUE 30 DAYS FROM 

THE DATE OF THIS ORDER.

PER CURIAM

Kenneth Ray Pitts sought leave in Pulaski County Circuit Court to proceed in forma 

pauperis on a civil “complaint for money damages, preliminary injunction relief and jury 

trial demand.” The trial court denied Pitts’s in forma pauperis petition, and Pitts filed a 

notice of appeal of that order. A record on appeal was lodged in this court, and when Pitts 

filed two motions—a motion for appointment of counsel and a motion requesting this court 

to require the circuit clerk to file-mark the in forma pauperis petition and complaint—we 

remanded for a supplemental record. Pitts v. Drummond, 2017 Ark. 47 (per curiam). The 

supplemental record has been returned, and we now address the two motions that Pitts filed.

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS.
Cite as 2017 Ark. 146

2

In his motion “to be allowed to proceed without costs in the circuit court,” Pitts 

would have this court declare him to be proceeding as a pauper on appeal and direct the 

circuit clerk to file the in forma pauperis petition that he submitted to the circuit court. 

Because Pitts’s appeal was lodged and the supplemental record has been returned, that 

motion is now moot.

In his motion for appointment of counsel, Pitts asserts that he cannot proceed on 

appeal because he is not a licensed attorney and to do so would be to act fraudulently and 

illegally, that the conditions of his incarceration limit his ability to comply with the time 

requirements to file his brief, and that, because either a trial or oral argument is likely to be 

required in the matter, he requires counsel to assist with the presentation of evidence. Pitts’s 

contention that oral argument or other hearing on the denial of a request to proceed in 

forma pauperis is likely to be required is unfounded because he provides no reason that the 

matter may not be easily resolved on the record and the briefs. His claim that he cannot 

represent himself is also unfounded. Pro se litigants are permitted to represent their own 

interests. Pitts v. Hobbs, 2011 Ark. 138 (per curiam); see also Preston v. Univ. of Ark. for Med. 

Scis., 354 Ark. 666, 128 S.W.3d 430 (2003); Ark. Bar Ass’n v. Union Nat’l Bank of Little 

Rock, 224 Ark. 48, 51, 273 S.W.2d 408, 410 (1954). Pitts commits no fraud in proceeding 

pro se if he represents himself, and he has been provided with this court’s rule denoting the 

procedure for filing a pro se brief.

This matter is civil, and there is no right to appointment of counsel in a civil action. 

Holloway v. Beebe, 2013 Ark. 12 (per curiam). Nevertheless, this court has held that if an 

appellant makes a substantial showing that he or she is entitled to relief and that he or she
Cite as 2017 Ark. 146

3

cannot proceed without counsel, it will appoint counsel. Id. Pitts made no more than a 

conclusory allegation that his appeal has merit, and without a demonstration of merit set 

forth in the motion, it will be denied. Id.

To the extent, however, that Pitts would request an extension of time in which to 

file his brief, we grant the request. Pitts has made no previous request for an extension of 

time. His brief is now due thirty days from the date of this order.

Motion to proceed without costs moot; motion for appointment of counsel denied 

in part and granted in part; pro se brief due 30 days from the date of this per curiam order.