Title: Elizabeth Gammon Brown v. Post Prison Transfer Board et al.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 00-21
State: Arkansas
Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court
Date: September 14, 2000

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION PER CURIAM SEPTEMBER 14, 2000 ELIZABETH GAMMON BROWN Appellant v. POST PRISON TRANSFER BOARD, et al Appellees 00-21 PRO SE MOTIONS TO STAY APPEAL, FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, and FOR RELIEF FROM CERTAIN CONDUCT OF THE ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION [CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, NO. CV 97-6790, HON. MORRIS THOMPSON, JUDGE] MOTIONS DENIED; EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANT'S BRIEF GRANTED Elizabeth Gammon Brown has lodged an appeal in this court from an order of the Circuit Court of Pulaski County denying a pro se petition for writ of certiorari, or in the alternative, for declaratory judgment. Appellant Brown, who is proceeding pro se, sought, and was granted, access to the record lodged on appeal and an extension of time to file the appellant's brief. Brown v. Post-Prison Transfer Board (March 25, 2000). Shortly before the appellant's brief was due to be filed, appellant filed a motion to stay the appeal. She then filed a motion for appointment of counsel and a motion for relief from certain conduct by officials of the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) in whose custody she is held. As the three motions are closely related, they will be considered together. Appellant states that the warden where she is incarcerated has confiscated all of her legal papers, including the material related to this appeal and the record that was mailed to her inaccordance with our decision of March 25, 2000. She contends that she has been unable to prepare her brief as a result. She concludes that she "should be permitted adequate and meaningful opportunity to submit" her brief, which may be assumed to be a request that this court compel the ADC to grant her access to her legal materials. (Since this request was made, appellant has returned the record, indicating that it was returned to her possession.) In view of appellant's problems with the ADC, she asks that counsel be appointed to represent her in this appeal. We have consistently declined to dictate the operation of the Arkansas Department of Correction. Martin v. State, 340 Ark. 719, 13 S.W.3d 576 (2000). If an appellant has been denied some legally protected right by virtue of the conduct of the officials at his or her place of incarceration, the appellant may proceed in the appropriate court with an action against those officials. As to appellant's request for appointment of counsel, there is no absolute right to appointment of counsel in civil matters. See Virgin v. Lockhart, 288 Ark. 92, 702 S.W.2d 9 (1986). We have held, however, that if an appellant makes a substantial showing that he or she is entitled to relief in a civil appeal and that he or she cannot proceed without counsel, we will appoint counsel. See Howard v. Lockhart, 300 Ark. 144, 777 S.W.2d 223 (1989). Appellant here has not demonstrated that there is merit to the appeal. While there is no ground to grant the motions filed by appellant, we will extend the time to file the appellant's brief to forty days from the date of this decision. As this appeal was lodged here on January 6, 2000, and appellant has had since that time to prepare her brief, no furtherextensions of time will be granted. Motions denied; extension of time granted.