Haywood Miller v. Honorable Willard Proctor, Jr., Circuit Judge
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
07-1335
Opinion Delivered
April 24, 2008
PRO SE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF DENIAL OF
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS [JUDICIAL
DISCIPLINE AND DISABILITY
COMMITTEE, COMPLAINT NO. 07177]
HAYWOOD MILLER
Petitioner
v.
HON. WILLARD PROCTOR, JR.,
CIRCUIT JUDGE
Respondent
MOTION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Haywood Miller tendered a petition for writ of certiorari to this court which
pertained to the dismissal of a complaint he filed with the Judicial Discipline and Disability
Committee. This court denied petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Miller
v. State, CR 07-1335 (Ark. Feb. 14, 2008) (per curiam). Petitioner was given thirty days to remit
the required filing fee to proceed with the petition for writ of certiorari. Now before us is his pro
se motion for reconsideration of the denial of the motion.
As petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari, which is civil in nature, petitioner is required to allege
facts that indicate a colorable cause of action in order to obtain leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Ark. R. Civ. P. 72; Boles v. Huckabee, 340 Ark. 410, 12 S.W.3d 201 (2000) (per curiam).
Petitioner’s original motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis contained no facts regarding the
basis for the petition for writ of certiorari.
Petitioner’s instant motion for reconsideration sets out mere allegations of judicial wrong-
doing regarding purportedly improper jury selection in petitioner’s criminal trial. It is clear that the
issue as described in the motion for reconsideration, and raised in the petition for writ of certiorari
filed in this court, is the same issue addressed on direct appeal from the judgment entered in the
underlying criminal matter. Miller v. State, CACR 02-715 (Ark. App. Apr. 2, 2003). It is also clear
that petitioner’s complaint filed with the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission
was an attempt to reargue that issue in order to reverse the criminal judgment through the guise of
a complaint against the trial judge.
A petition for writ of certiorari is extraordinary relief. Jordan v. Circuit Court of Lee Co.,
366 Ark. 326, 235 S.W.3d 487 (2006). Extraordinary relief is not a substitute for an appeal, Gran
v. Hale, 294 Ark. 563, 745 S.W.2d 129 (1988), and would lie only where an appeal was inadequate.
Forrest City Mach. Works, Inc. v. Erwin, 304 Ark. 321, 802 S.W.2d 140 (1991). Petitioner’s
attempt to seek a writ of certiorari to reverse the Commission’s dismissal of petitioner’s complaint
against the trial judge is precluded; this issue has been fully considered on appeal, and it presents
no colorable cause of action. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that there was some error of fact
or law in the decision that would merit reconsideration of the denial of the motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis.
If petitioner desires to proceed with the petition for writ of certiorari, it is his responsibility
to tender the fee required within ten days from the date of this opinion in order to file the petition
with the clerk of this court.
Motion denied.
-2-
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.
