Hendrix v. Vaughn
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
09-14
Opinion Delivered
ALFONZO HENDRIX
Petitioner
April 9, 2009
PRO SE MOTION FOR RULE ON
CLERK [CIRCUIT COURT OF
NEVADA COUNTY, CV 2006-67, HON.
RUSSELL ROGERS, JUDGE]
v.
CARL VAUGHN
Respondent
MOTION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Alfonzo Hendrix filed a pro se civil complaint against the respondent Carl Vaughn
that contained allegations of wrongful imprisonment and false accusations filed in a police report.
The circuit court dismissed the case, and petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal on September 2,
2008. Our clerk declined to file the record when it was submitted on December 3, 2008. Petitioner
has filed a pro se motion for rule on clerk, requesting permission to proceed with an appeal of the
circuit court’s order.
The time limit in Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure--Civil 5(a) requires that the record
be tendered to this court within ninety days of the date of the notice of appeal, unless the circuit court
granted an extension of time. The partial record before us does not reflect an extension of time to
file the record, and petitioner concedes that the record was tendered outside of the ninety day limit
in Rule 5(a). In his motion, petitioner contends that the record was held by the circuit clerk, and he
blames the court reporter, the court, and the clerk for failing to tender the record within ninety days
of the date of the notice of appeal.
Petitioner’s complaint was a civil cause of action and any appeal is thus governed by our civil
rules of procedure. In criminal cases, under Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure--Criminal 2(e),
a petitioner may seek to appeal an order, in some circumstances, despite having failed to comply
with the time requirements imposed by the rules governing criminal appeals. No comparable rule
exists to perfect an appeal in civil cases. See Childers v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 360 Ark. 517,
202 S.W.3d 529 (2005) (per cuiam). While this court has recognized some circumstances where a
right to appeal is implicated, as in Childers, or under the most extraordinary circumstances in other
cases, where an exception may be appropriate, those circumstances do not exist here. See Waste
Mgmt. & Transp. Ins. Co. v. Estridge, 363 Ark. 42, 210 S.W.3d 869 (2005).
Nor does the fact that petitioner is not represented by counsel provide an excuse for his
failure to comply with procedure. All litigants, including those who proceed pro se, must bear
responsibility for conforming to the rules of procedure or demonstrating a 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). Because
petitioner has shown no basis to permit an appeal to proceed, we deny his motion for rule on clerk.
Motion denied.
Gunter, J., not participating.
-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.
