Hall v. Hudson
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
09-66
Opinion Delivered
TOMMY HALL
Petitioner
March 19, 2009
PRO SE MOTION FOR PHOTOCOPY
OF CERTIFIED DOCUMENTS
[CIRCUIT COURT OF MILLER
COUNTY, CV 2004-285]
v.
HON. JIM HUDSON, CIRCUIT JUDGE
Respondent
MOTION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
On January 26, 2009, petitioner Tommy Hall filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in
this court. In the petition, he contended that the Honorable Jim Hudson, Circuit Judge, had failed
to act in a timely manner on a motion seeking an amended judgment in a civil matter.1 On January
29, 2009, respondent Hudson provided this court with a copy of a letter order entered January 15,
2009, that disposed of petitioner’s request that the judgment be amended. As the court had acted in
the matter, the petition for writ of mandamus was declared moot. Hall v. Hudson, 09-66 (Ark. Feb.
12, 2009) (per curiam). Now before us is petitioner Hall’s motion asking that this court provide him
with a copy of the certified documents that made up the record in the mandamus proceeding so that
he may perfect an appeal from the January 15, 2009, order.
1
The judgment was entered February 22, 2007, in a forfeiture action, State v. Two Thousand
Seven Hundred Fifteen Dollars ($2,715.00) in U. S. Currency and Tommy Hall, CV 2004-285, Circuit
Court of Miller County. The record in this mandamus action contains two pro se motions to amend the
judgment, the first filed October 17, 2008, and the second filed November 12, 2008.
The motion is denied. If a petitioner elects to proceed with an appeal from a circuit court
order, he or she is responsible for timely filing a notice of appeal and obtaining from the circuit clerk
the certified record necessary to perfect the appeal. There is no provision in the prevailing rules of
procedure for this court to take documents from a record lodged in this court and permit those
documents to form the record for a separate appeal.
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.
