Edward Loveless v. Roy Agee, Arkansas Department of Correction Keeper of Records, and Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
08-144
Opinion Delivered
EDWARD LOVELESS
Appellant
v.
ROY AGEE, ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION
KEEPER OF RECORDS, AND LARRY
NORRIS, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION
Appellees
October 30, 2008
PRO SE MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION
OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANT’S
BRIEF, FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL AND FOR DUPLICATION
AT STATE EXPENSE [CIRCUIT
COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, CV
2007-781, HON. ROBERT H. WYATT,
JR., JUDGE]
FINAL EXTENSION GRANTED;
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL DENIED; MOTION FOR
DUPLICATION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Appellant Edward Loveless, a prisoner incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of
Correction, filed a pro se petition for declaratory judgment and writ of mandamus in Jefferson
County Circuit Court. The trial court dismissed the petition, and appellant has lodged an appeal of
that order in this court. Petitioner previously filed motions requesting an extension of time to file
his brief and requesting appointment of counsel, and a later motion to supplement the record.
Appellant’s request for an extension was granted in part and the motion for counsel denied. Loveless
v. Agee, 08-144 (Ark. May 1, 2008) (per curiam). His motion to supplement was denied. Loveless
v. Agee, 08-144 (Ark. May 29, 2008) (per curiam).
Appellant has filed two additional pro se motions in which he seeks extensions of time in
which to file his brief and again requests appointment of counsel. Appellant indicated that he
required additional time because of factors related to his incarceration that caused delay. Since filing
the motions, appellant has tendered two copies of his brief and has filed a motion to duplicate
appellant’s brief at public expense.
In appellant’s motion requesting that his brief be duplicated at public expense, he indicates
that he is indigent and unable to pay the costs of copies. There is no right to have a brief in a civil
case duplicated at public expense. Maxie v. Gaines, 317 Ark. 229, 876 S.W.2d 572 (1994) (per
curiam). In those cases where the indigent appellant is able to make a substantial showing on proper
motion that he is entitled to relief and that he cannot provide this court with a sufficient number of
copies of the appellant’s brief, we will request the Attorney General to duplicate the brief tendered
by the appellant. Id. Here, appellant has not addressed the merits of his appeal in his motion and
has therefore failed to make the requisite showing that he is entitled to relief. We deny the motion
for duplication at public expense, but grant the motion as to the extension to allow appellant to
submit the additional fifteen copies of the brief that are required. The remaining copies are due here
no later than fifteen days from the date of this opinion. No further extensions will be granted.
Appellant additionally renews his request for appointment of counsel. As in his previous
motion, appellant does not address the merits of this appeal. As we noted in our opinion on the
previous motion for counsel, appellant has failed to make a substantial showing that he is entitled
to relief, and, as a result, we do not appoint counsel. See Howard v. Lockhart, 300 Ark. 144, 777
S.W.2d 223 (1989) (per curiam). That request in appellant’s motion is therefore denied.
Final extension granted; motion for appointment of counsel denied; motion for duplication
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.