Eugene Yankee Hall v. Pulaski County Sheriff's Department and Randy Johnson, Sheriff

Annotate this Case
02-331

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

JUNE 13, 2002

EUGENE YANKEE HALL

Movant

v.

PULASKI COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT. and RANDY JOHNSON, Sheriff

Respondent

02-331

PRO SE MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, NO. CV 2001-10801), HON. JOHN C. WARD, JUDGE

MOTION DENIED

Eugene Hall, who is in the custody of the Arkansas Department of Correction, filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Pulaski County Sheriff's Department, seeking documents from a "closed case." Hall then filed an "Appeal for the Denail of Access of Records" in the Pulaski County Circuit Court. Hall requested that he receive the copies free of charge due to being indigent. The circuit court entered an order denying Hall leave to proceed in forma pauperis, noting that Hall did not meet the requirements of Rule 72(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Hall filed a notice of appeal from the order and has tendered a record in this court without the filing fee required for civil cases. The Clerk declined to lodge the record because it was not tendered within ninety days of the notice of appeal as required. Hall now seeks by motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this court to file a motion for rule on the clerk with respect to the tendered record without paying the filing fee required to file such a motion in a civil case.

The motion to proceed at public expense is denied. Petitioner Hall has offered nothing inthe motion from which it can be concluded that there is any merit to the appeal. This court has consistently declined to take any action to continue a civil appeal without a showing by the appellant that there is substantial merit to the original cause of action. See Mixon v. State, 318 Ark. 672, 887 S.W.2d 307 (1994); Miner v. Furman, 318 Ark. 883, 887 S.W.2d 310 (1994); Howard v. Lockhart, 300 Ark. 144, 777 S.W.2d 223 (1989); Virgin v. Lockhart, 288 Ark. 92, 702 S.W.2d 9 (1986).

Motion denied.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.