Elizabeth Gammon Brown v. Post Prison Transfer Board et al.

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

MARCH 22, 2001

ELIZABETH GAMMON BROWN

Appellant

v.

POST PRISON TRANSFER BOARD, et al

Appellees

00-21

PRO SE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, NO. CV 97-6790, HON. MORRIS THOMPSON, JUDGE]

MOTION DENIED

Elizabeth Gammon Brown, an inmate of the Arkansas Department of Correction, 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 several motions. We denied the motions but extended the time to file the appellant's brief to October 24, 2000. We specifically provided at that time that no further extensions of time to file the brief would be granted in light of the fact that the appeal was lodged here on January 6, 2000, and appellant had had since that time to prepare her brief. Brown v. Post-Prison Transfer Board, 00-21 (September 14, 2000). On October 2, 2000, appellant requested yet another motion for extension of time, citing the increased burden that she as an incarcerated appellant had in complying withprocedural rules. We noted that all litigants, including those who proceed pro se, must bear responsibility for conforming to the rules of procedure or demonstrating a good cause for not doing so; and, finding that appellant Brown had not stated sufficient cause to grant another extension of time, dismissed the appeal. Brown v. Post Prison Transfer Board, 343 Ark. 118, 32 S.W.3d 754 (2000). Now before us is appellant's motion for reconsideration in which she urges this court to adopt the "mail box rule" promulgated in a federal court matter in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988), that provided that an item is considered filed with the federal court when it is placed in the prison mail.

The motion for reconsideration is denied. This court has specifically held that the mail box rule as applied in Houston v. Lack does not apply to our State court proceedings. Hamel v. State, 338 Ark. 769, 1 S.W.3d 434 (1999).

Motion denied.