Loveless v. Tucker
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2009 Ark. 108 (unpublished)
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
08-1177
Opinion Delivered
February 26, 2009
PRO SE MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION
OF BRIEF TIME AND FOR ACCESS
TO RECORD ON APPEAL [CIRCUIT
COURT OF POPE COUNTY, CV 200838]
EDWARD LOVELESS
Appellant
v.
FERN TUCKER, CIRCUIT CLERK OF
POPE COUNTY
Appellee
MOTIONS GRANTED.
PER CURIAM
In 2008, appellant Edward Loveless filed a pro se complaint for declaratory judgment and
petition for writ of mandamus in Pope County Circuit Court. Therein, he sought to obtain
various documents pursuant to the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), codified
as Arkansas Code Annotated §§ 25-19-101–109 (Repl. 2002 & Supp. 2007), from appellee Fern
Tucker, who is the circuit court clerk for that county. After a hearing, the circuit court entered
an order that granted appellee’s motion for summary judgment and denied all pending motions
for additional relief sought by appellant. Appellant has lodged an appeal here from the order.
Now before us are appellant’s pro se motions for an extension of time to file his brief-in-chief
and for access to the record lodged in this appeal.
In the motion for access, appellant argues that he is entitled to a personal copy of the
record on appeal which he claims was mistakenly sent by the circuit court clerk to this court for
Cite as 2009 Ark. 108 (unpublished)
filing. The record indicates that it was prepared at public expense as appellant was granted
pauper status by the trial court. However, proceeding in forma pauperis does not obligate the state
to provide him with a copy of the record lodged in the appeal. When a record is prepared at
public expense, it is prepared for the purpose of perfecting the appeal. The record lodged on
appeal is not the property of appellant, and as such, appellant has no absolute right to a personal
copy of it. Bradshaw v. State, 372 Ark. 305, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2008) (per curiam).
Nevertheless, as appellant must abstract those portions of the trial transcript that are
pertinent to an appeal of an order, he is entitled to access to the record. See Taylor v. State, 340
Ark. 654, 12 S.W.3d 238 (2000). Our clerk will provide appellant with a copy of the transcript
lodged on direct appeal.
Regarding the motion for additional brief time, no other requests have been made by
appellant for extensions of time. The motion for extension of time will be granted and the time
to file the appellant’s brief is extended to forty days from the date of this opinion. The copy of
the transcript must be returned to this court when the brief is submitted.
Motions granted.
-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.
