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 3 0 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER

.

PER CURIAM Kenneth Ray Pitts sought leave in Pulaski County Circuit C ourt 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 comp laint

— 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.Cite as 2017 Ark. 146

2 In his motion “to be allowed to proceed wit hout costs in the circuit court,” Pitts
would have this court declare him to be proceeding as a pauper on appeal and direct t he
circuit clerk to file the in form a pauperis petition that he submitted to the circuit court.
Be cause Pitts’s appeal was lodged and the supplemental record has be en 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 incarce ration 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 ar gument 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 t here 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 appell ant makes a substantial showing that he or she is entitled to relief and that he or sheCite 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

.