Jones v. Norris
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2009 Ark. 429
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
09-655
Opinion Delivered
HOWARD WAYNE JONES
Petitioner
September 17, 2009
PRO SE MOTION FOR BELATED
APPEAL [CIRCUIT COURT OF LEE
COUNTY, CV 2008-32, HON. HARVEY
YATES, JUDGE]
v.
LARRY NORRIS, DIRECTOR,
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION
Respondent
MOTION TREATED AS MOTION FOR
RULE ON CLERK AND DENIED.
PER CURIAM
On March 3, 2008, petitioner Howard Wayne Jones, a prisoner in the custody of the
Arkansas Department of Correction, filed a pro se petition for declaratory judgment and writ of
mandamus in the Circuit Court of Lee County. On December 17, 2008, the petition was dismissed.
Petitioner timely filed a notice of appeal, but he did not tender the record to this court within ninety
days of the date of the notice of appeal as required by Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure–Civil
5(a). Now before us is petitioner’s motion seeking leave to lodge the record belatedly and proceed
with an appeal of the December 17, 2008, order. As a notice of appeal was timely filed, we treat the
motion as a motion for rule on clerk to lodge the record. See Ray v. State, 348 Ark. 304, 73 S.W.3d
594 (2002) (per curiam).
Petitioner argues that the circuit clerk was at fault for the late tender of the record. It is not,
however, the duty of the circuit clerk, or the responsibility of anyone other than the petitioner, to
Cite as 2009 Ark. 429
perfect an appeal. See Sullivan v. State, 301 Ark. 352, 784 S.W.2d 155 (1990) (per curiam); Bragg
v. State, 297 Ark. 348, 760 S.W.2d 878 (1988) (per curiam). All litigants, including those who
proceed pro se, must bear responsibility for conforming to the rules of procedure or demonstrating
good cause for not doing so. Peterson v. State, 289 Ark. 452, 711 S.W.2d 830 (1986) (per curiam);
Walker v. State, 283 Ark. 339, 676 S.W.2d 460 (1984) (per curiam); Thompson v. State, 280 Ark.
163, 655 S.W.2d 424 (1983) (per curiam). See also Tarry v. State, 353 Ark. 158, 114 S.W.3d 161
(2003) (per curiam).
The purpose of the rule setting time limitations on lodging a record is to eliminate
unnecessary delay in the docketing of appeals. We have made it abundantly clear that we expect
compliance with the rule so that appeals will proceed as expeditiously as possible. Jacobs v. State,
321 Ark. 561, 906 S.W.2d 670 (1995) (per curiam) (citing Alexander v. Beaumont, 275 Ark. 357,
629 S.W.2d 300 (1982) (per curiam)). Petitioner has stated no good cause for the failure to comply
with our rules and timely lodge the record.
It is further noted that petitioner's complaint was a civil cause of action and any appeal is
thus governed by our civil rules of procedure. Generally, there is no provision in the prevailing rules
of procedure to lodge a record in a civil matter that is not timely tendered. See Childers v. Ark. Dep't
of Human Servs., 360 Ark. 517, 202 S.W.3d 529 (2005) (per curiam); see also Sisler v. Bramlett,
2009 Ark. 404, ___ S.W.3d ___. Petitioner has not shown that there are circumstances in this civil
matter where a right to appeal is implicated. See Waste Mgmt. & Transp. Ins. Co. v. Estridge, 363
Ark. 42, 210 S.W.3d 869 (2005).
Motion treated as motion for rule on clerk and 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.
