Kenneth Hunt v. Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

JULY 9, 2001

KENNETH HUNT

Petitioner

v.

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION

Respondent

01-389

PRO SE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

MOTION DENIED

On March 22, 2001, Kenneth Hunt tendered to this court a pro se petition for writ of mandamus, alleging that the Circuit Clerkof Lee County had failed to perform certain duties with respect to a civil proceeding to which Hunt was a party. The petition was returned to him because such petitions are properly filed in the circuit court. On March 28, 2001, Hunt tendered a motion for rule on clerk seeking to file the mandamus action here. He further alleged that a petition for preliminary injunction which was tendered to this court in January 2001 and returned to him to be filed in circuit court should have been filed here Also received was a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in which Hunt sought leave to file the motion for rule on clerk without paying the $100 filing fee required to file a motion for rule on clerk in a civil matter in this court .

We denied the motion to proceed in forma pauperis on the ground that petitioner had notprovided a record of the proceedings in circuit court and without a certified record of the lower court proceedings, it could not be determined that this court had jurisdiction to consider petitioner's motion for rule on clerk. Hunt v. Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration (Ark. 01-389, May 24, 2001). Petitioner Hunt subsequently filed the instant motion for reconsideration in which he contends that he cannot provide a certified record of the lower court proceedings because the circuit judges in Lee County have instructed the circuit clerk not to file pleadings from indigents and that the clerk "directs indigent pleaders to go and find a judge to sign their pleadings." Petitioner argues that he has been denied access to the courts.

The motion for reconsideration is denied. All that has been before this court is petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis in which he sought to file a motion for rule on clerk in a civil matter without paying a filing fee. As we said when the motion was denied, we have no ground on which to assume jurisdiction of the matter because there is no certified record of any proceedings in circuit court. There is nothing in the motion for reconsideration that establishes a basis on which this court could accept jurisdiction of the matter.

Motion denied.